From: "Darryl L. Pierce" <mcpierce@...>
Date: 2011-06-28T03:06:48+09:00
Subject: Re: Understanding Threading...

--0rSojgWGcpz+ezC3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:28:07AM +0900, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> Is your block using some C extension?=20

Yep, C++.

We have our primary codebase written in C++. We then use Swig to
generate language bindings for Python, Java and Ruby so that we don't
try to reimplement features in each supported language.

So now the question is whether it's worth it for 1.8 to try and work
around this issue or whether it's better to just make the Ruby
developers aware that calling the blocking operations will result in the
main thread being blocked...

> In ruby<1.9, threads in ruby do
> not use system threads. So, if you call
> some external C command, no thread will run in ruby. In ruby>=3D1.9, it
> uses pthreads.

So in 1.9 we should have _some_ semblance of multi-threading with
extensions?

--=20
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce@gmail.com>
http://mcpierce.multiply.com/
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

--0rSojgWGcpz+ezC3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk4IxrIACgkQtddqM0QFuLLATACfduYxz1J4o/Nh3/UYpnBccG97
ypcAn0pVr4qLTWek85u6eiB5fZL2Sztj
=5sHl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0rSojgWGcpz+ezC3--