From: Rogers Gene A Civ 96 CG/SCTOB Date: 2001-03-24T00:35:56+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:13142] Re: Thread Safe This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello, Thanks for the assessment. I figured that such a thing had to be pretty complex to code. Implementations of TCL are said to be thread safe (as in AOLServer) but I wonder if that's an accurate description of what actually exists. I think that they actually keep a pool of available interpreters (if I'm incorrect someone please correct me) ready for use by a thread in that case the interpreter itself is run on a single thread, just kept around and ready. I guess I need to look a bit further into the issue. Thanks, ~gar -----Original Message----- From: matz@zetabits.com [mailto:matz@zetabits.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:19 PM To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org Subject: [ruby-talk:13112] Re: Thread Safe Hi, In message "[ruby-talk:13079] Thread Safe" on 01/03/23, Rogers Gene A Civ 96 CG/SCTOB writes: |Here's a question (stupid, maybe): Not stupid at all. |Does anyone know if ruby is thread safe? In short, no. Sorry. I'd like to support it, but it's technically pretty hard. Ruby/Java runs Ruby interpreter on single thread, and every other thread communicates with the thread via queue. This in one possibility for near future. matz. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [ruby-talk:13112] Re: Thread Safe

Hello,

Thanks for the assessment.  I figured that such = a thing had to be pretty complex to code.  Implementations of TCL = are said to be thread safe (as in AOLServer) but I wonder if that's an = accurate description of what actually exists.  I think that they = actually keep a pool of available interpreters (if I'm incorrect = someone please correct me) ready for use by a thread in that case the = interpreter itself is run on a single thread, just kept around and = ready.  I guess I need to look a bit further into the = issue.

Thanks,
~gar

-----Original Message-----
From: matz@zetabits.com [mailto:matz@zetabits.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:19 PM
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-talk:13112] Re: Thread Safe


Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:13079] Thread = Safe"
    on 01/03/23, Rogers Gene A Civ 96 = CG/SCTOB <gene.rogers@eglin.af.mil> writes:

|Here's a question (stupid, maybe):

Not stupid at all.

|Does anyone know if ruby is thread safe?

In short, no.  Sorry.  I'd like to support = it, but it's technically
pretty hard.

Ruby/Java runs Ruby interpreter on single thread, and = every other
thread communicates with the thread via queue.  = This in one
possibility for near future.

        =         =         =         =         =         =         matz.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130--