Re: RFC: Prototype for a user threading library in Ada

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <ggsub@pragmada.co.cc>]

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 4:38:34 AM UTC-7, Hadrien Grasland wrote:
> After going through a thesaurus a bit, what would you think about "job", perhaps with an extra "asynchronous" qualifier?
> 
> The term has a long history of being used in various task scheduling contexts. A minor issue is that it tends to be associated with batch processing, but that is not an extremely strong connection, and isn't entirely wrong either. In general, the term reflects the idea of an ongoing process without abusing that specific word. I think it could work quite well.

Yes. Since yesterday (see my post on Eternal September) I've been trying to post:

Although your terminology is different, IIUC, this seems to be library to provide job pools: a set of tasks that can process jobs as they become available. A job, which you confusingly call an asynchronous task, is defined by a type with an associated operation. A task (in Ada terms) in the pool simply obtains a value of the type and invokes the operation on it. The library provides queuing for jobs when all tasks are busy, blocking of tasks when no jobs are available, and the creation of the tasks. There is a number of variations of the problem, mostly depending on dynamic/static creation of tasks and whether/how tasks terminate.