From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2007-10-11T00:04:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Inter-Process Messaging

James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:39 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 
>> So I'd go with EventMachine, because that *is* well maintained.
> 
> I would go with a pipe, because it's easy and sounds like it's all 
> that's needed here.  I'm an EventMachine fan, but don't underestimate 
> the trivial approach.
> 
> James Edward Gray II
> 
> 

Well, if the architecture is *always* going to be "parent-forked child 
message passing on a single machine", sure. But what if the task grows 
beyond the capabilities of that architecture? Remember, I'm one of those 
people who's in *favor* of "premature" optimization. :)

But seriously, Ruby has so many user-friendly ways to do concurrency 
both inside a single machine and across machines that I wouldn't limit 
myself to parent-forked child message passing on a single machine. I'd 
use EventMachine because it's more flexible. And to the person who 
suggested "shared memory", I'd say simply, "Bah!" :)