From: Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
Date: 2002-06-27T04:28:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Andy Roonie is perhaps excessively optimistic

> > "Right.  Well, heck, I guess we can carry on using Perl on the
> > desktops too.  I tell you what, though, we might still use Ruby
> > for some large application that doesn't need to interact with the
> > outside world much.  Ruby's clean OO structure should make
> > multithreading pretty easy."  "It doesn't do multithreading.  It
> > has what you would call 'fibers', but they are not true threads.
> > If you perform a blocking operation, the whole program blocks.
> > The trouble is, the Ruby code assumes one Ruby machine per process
> > so it's hard to roll your own multithreaded Ruby."  "Well, how on
> > earth do you use it in a web server, then?"  "You remember Apache
> > version one?"
> 
> Grins for the Apache 1 reference ;) Yes, I think most people agree
> that Ruby needs native threads support. And I think it's equally
> clear that there's no way to hack that into the present Ruby source
> and we'll need to wait for Rite.

Just to set the record strait, Apache 2 using the threaded MPM isn't
an issue of native threads, its an issue of multiple interpreters per
process.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden