Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking)
- From: Diego Nehab <diego@...>
- Date: 2008年2月29日 12:17:10 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
The main requirement to have an effective lis scheduler is
having _one_ single call to wait for _any_ kind of long
operations.
Is LusSocket mechanism flexible enough to handle local
sockets and file I/O?
Local sockets, definitely. File I/O I don't see why not. I
wonder if the OS implements non-blocking I/O on regular
files. I have heard on this list that this is usually not
the case. It will be fun to test.
Other blocking operations (like DB or libraries) could be
handled by a separate process, reporting via sockets.
Somewhat tedious, but very doable.
The idea is to provide a way for users and other libraries
to post into the completion queue. And these functions can
be made thread safe. As for IPC, I haven't thought about how
to make it simpler yet.
Kind regards,
Diego
- References:
- A proposal for faster userdata type checking, Chris
- Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking, Taj Khattra
- Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking, Diego Nehab
- LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Petite Abeille
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Diego Nehab
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Petite Abeille
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Diego Nehab
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Petite Abeille
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Diego Nehab
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Doug Currie
- Re: LuaSocket 3.0? (was Re: A proposal for faster userdata type checking), Javier Guerra