home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
-
- I've finally got a copy of P1003.4, and I find it to be quite nice. The
- lack of threads is no big deal... threads should certainly be standardised,
- but any threads design that can't be implemented on top of P1003.4 is
- probably going to cause big problems for existing systems anyway.
-
- One thing to consider is that threads and real-time are not equivalent
- concepts. Threads are a nice technique for implementing real-time systems,
- and most real-time systems make an implementation of threads pretty easy,
- but there are non-real-time systems that implement lightweight processes for
- reasons of improving throughput rather than reducing response time.
-
- Keeping P1003.4 from prohibiting certain threaded implementations is one
- thing, but it shouldn't require threads in any real-time system. And it
- shouldn't require that you have to go to a real-time system to conform
- to the threads standard.
-
- Threads probably deserves a P1003 number of its own.
-
- As for Berkeley's sore feelings because P1003.4 doesn't look like BSD, that's
- just silly. It'd be like USG being upset because P1003.4 doesn't implement
- the System-V IPC kludges. P1003.4 looks quite familiar to me, from working
- with other real-time systems... including real-time-like UNIX. And it should
- be implementable (as far as the functionality you need for real-time can be)
- on top of sockets, without penalising real real time folks by sticking them
- with a socket interface.
- --
- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>
- / \ 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
- \_.--._/ Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address
- v is acceptable.
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 19, Number 99
-
-