From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 21:30:08
"scott" <scottw_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Hurd, Matthew
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:31 PM
> Thanks for the numbers!
> Excellent stuff. would like to add the note that in an "ideal"
> deployment of the ActiveObject pattern, it brings zero overhead.
> Thats a wee bit sensational to make the point. but the overheads
> incurred with mechansims such as inter-thread messaging were
> there anyway. so yes copying, queueing, dequeueing and signaling
> a thread all consume cycles. but the application would have had
> to do something similar. ActiveObject is just a formalization
> and acknowledgement of it.
Hmm, thank goodness that emacs/gnus has a "Capitalize" key command
for messages like this one. Sadly, it didn't fix everything ;-)
Are ActiveObjects like all objects were in Simula: each running in its
own thread, with fully asynchronous inter-object communications?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk