From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-29 17:45:59
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
> Right, that was kind of my point. It's not a black and white issue, but
Don't think I said it was...I was simply trying to nudge towards more robust
> rather a question of frequency or probability. If you can tolerate the slim
> chances of blocking, you can go with synchronous calls.
> The fact that it's a
> different machine doesn't increase the chances that much; interprocess calls
> to the same machine have a similar chance of blocking, except that you now
> need half the load, all else being equal.
I was using this as one example. The second you go outside of a 'small, all
on the same subnet, you control all the clients and servers' examples the odds
of these these issues increase alot in my experience.
> Async is better but requires more
> coding investment that may not be worth it, pragmatically speaking.
Right, so my argument is a) beyond some pretty small scale examples sync is
doomed, and b) async isn't that much harder, so why not learn how to deal with
it up front? When we start talking about RPC facilities for Boost it's just
not going to be acceptable to limit the problem space to what sync can do.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk