From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS4713 221.184.0.0/13 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A241F404 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 20:18:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427A8120A09; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 05:18:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net (dcvr.yhbt.net [64.71.152.64]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06148120A07 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 05:18:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1921B1F404; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 20:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 20:18:31 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Message-ID: <20180128201831.GC10749@starla> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 85190 Subject: [ruby-core:85190] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid X-BeenThere: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ruby developers List-Id: Ruby developers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ruby-core-bounces@ruby-lang.org Sender: "ruby-core" danieldasilvaferreira@gmail.com wrote: > ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote: > > > I'm not sure we should limit to use them on Threadlet or not. > > > > 1. Threads and Threadlets can share same synchronization tools > > -> Good: no learning efforts > > -> Bad: People can cause sync issues with mis-using or missing syncs > > > 2. Introduce Threadlets special synchronization tools and introduce special rules communicate with other threads > > -> Good: people can only use good tools (such as Queues) > > -> Bad: we need to learn new tools and rules > > I'm all for (2) for the reasons I already mentioned: > > * Specially the big minus that we have in (1): "People can cause sync issues" > * Using only good tools is a big +. > * Not causing sync issues is a big ++. > * The fact that people will be forced to learn new tools and rules is also a big + for me. > * It draws the border between the old async scenario and the new one we are trying to implement. No, I'm against making major changes. For 2, I mean we limit usage to queues for now, which is a a subset of 1; but I'm also OK implementing mutex/condvar support for 1. Having less things to learn is better for adoption and improving usefulness > > If we think Threadlet is a special Thread (and the name indicates it), > then (1) seems nice for me. > > I agree `Threadlet` has that implication. > > Since we prefer to use names already in use in the async world > what about call it: > > **Lane** Too obscure and not obvious for me; do non-Lua people know about it? Terms such as process, thread, task, actor are already in wide use across several different languages; so it should be obvious. > * Lane meaning: a narrow road or division of a road When comparing to physical objects, it seems more appropriate for something like a channel or pipe.