From: "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2008-07-30T14:33:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Concurrent Ruby?


On Jul 29, 2008, at 10:33 PM, David Masover wrote:

> That implies a full copy (I think), which isn't always what's needed.
>
> Without actually testing your implementation, what happens when I  
> send, say, a
> reference to an actor? (Kind of an essential feature.)

DRb handles references.  DRbUndumped provides a means to pass  
references to remote objects around.

>
>
> And without actually doing any benchmarks (how's that for naive?), I  
> still
> find it hard to believe that DRb+Queue would scale better than Thread 
> +Queue,
> for large numbers of actors. (Keep in mind, it's not unusual for an  
> Erlang
> program to have thousands of processes.)

no doubt that's true.  processes can help you now though - especially  
since threads don't scale right now in ruby with multi processor  
machines.

>
>
> Given that I still have a vague hope that YARV will eventually  
> remove the GIL,
> I'd rather stick to Threads, if I can make them safe.


sure, but if you want to burn up processors you simply have to use  
processes attm.

you might find this interesting

http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/browse_thread/thread/b4e346478eeeead4/0cbc4a86f2237476?lnk=gst&q=threadify+jruby#0cbc4a86f2237476

a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama