28 Jun
2011
28 Jun
'11
6:20 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
On 6/26/11 10:15 PM, Matthew Williams wrote:
I do think a common async worker pool would be a good solution. Otherwise,
each module that implements async operations will need its own pool.
What do you think, should the async module export an API function such as:
int async_continue(int thash, int tlabel, void* data, int
(*data_handler)(void*));
This would allow for optional data to be processed by a callback function
within the context of the worker process before t_continue is actually
called.
Matthew Williams
Flowroute LLC
Hi Daniel,
Am I correct that t_continue continues processing in the process that
calls it? If so, would it make sense for the async module to have an api for
other asynchronous modules to hand off to its worker pool before calling
t_continue? Or would it be better for each module to have its own pool of
workers?
right now the workers in async module are dummy timers to handle async
delayed execution of next actions or specific route block. But there can be
coded a single pool of workers and timers for async processing, might be a
better solution overall.