From: Scott Woods (scottw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-12 23:14:47
Hi Aaron (Rabid Dog?),
Read your post with interest. An observation relating to the outlined
architecture follows.
The demultiplexor that requires all waitable services to expose their
handles (sounds positively pornographic); does it have to be that
way?
In the work by D. Schmidt (already referenced by J. Garland) that
describes Active Objects there is an object (i.e. instance of a particular
class) that is pretty much equivalent to a thread. There may be a
variety of these objects (instances of types derived from a common
base "thread" class) in a running process.
Each Active Object Scheduler (AKA demultiplexor or reactor) waits
on 1 or more waitable services and translates the related events into a
generic event that may be routed anywhere in the process.
If a Scheduler is created around a troublesome waitable service (i.e.
one that refuses to expose its handles), doesnt this achieve the uniformity
across asynchronous activity that you are pursuing?
Cheers,
Scott