From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-24 21:03:38 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.task.gda.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: taw@pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl (Tomasz Wegrzanowski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?
Date: 25 Jul 2001 04:03:38 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Message-ID: <9jlgeq$rse$1@news.tpi.pl>
References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>
 <tl9tq98nt23c4c@corp.supernews.com>
 <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com>
 <3B55B01A.DAC06D79@icn.siemens.de>
 <5be89e2f.0107181248.73298c57@posting.google.com>
 <GRo57.67730$B56.13488331@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <9j949b$1ujp$1@norfair.nerim.net>
 <9cV57.54954$WS4.8386096@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <9j98pv$20vi$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B586C51.53C17E25@home.com>
 <hJh77.5332$ar1.14495@www.newsranger.com>
Reply-To: taw@users.sourceforge.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pb220.legnica.sdi.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 996033818 28558 213.25.230.220 (25 Jul 2001 04:03:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jul 2001 04:03:38 GMT
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.1 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10544
Date: 2001-07-25T04:03:38+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <hJh77.5332$ar1.14495@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison wrote:
> 2) Even though either language can do it just fine, I don't think "select"
> support is that big of a deal anyway. Most serious network servers (according to
> the literature I read) don't use select. They instead keep a pool of threads
> (tasks), and assign IP connections as they come in to the next available thread.
> Using "select" would tie up your entire server into processing one request at a
> time, which might be OK for something that doesn't get hit a lot, but would be
> horrible for a server that may expect several simultanious requests from
> different parties. "select" probably has its uses, but it seems to mostly be a
> holdover from the pre-thread era.

I must disagree with you now.
You can and should use select() in all threads with wake-one.
This saves you a lot of context-switches compared to connection queses,
and that's a big win, at least on intel handware.