From: Eric Wong Date: 2018-01-28T20:18:31+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:85190] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid 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. Unsubscribe: