From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Subject: Re: Task with access to itself?
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:39:16 -0700
Date: 2012-12-11T13:39:16-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ka85lk$8pe$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ehiwygv1.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
On 12/11/2012 04:21 AM, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
>
> This is a nice pattern, but it lacks two features I would like to have:
>
> 1) Dynamic addition of tasks.
When we have a new job, if there are no tasks waiting on the queue of jobs, we
allocate a new task.
> 2) Control over which order the worker tasks are activated in.
Why? They're all identical. In our case, we only allocate a task when there's a
job to do and no existing task to handle it; such tasks are of course activated
in the order they're created.
--
Jeff Carter
"C++ is like jamming a helicopter inside a Miata
and expecting some sort of improvement."
Drew Olbrich
51
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-11 20:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-05 13:53 Task with access to itself? Jacob Sparre Andersen
2012-12-05 14:18 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2012-12-05 16:57 ` Jeffrey Carter
2012-12-11 11:21 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2012-12-11 20:39 ` Jeffrey Carter [this message]
2012-12-12 20:25 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2012-12-12 21:11 ` Jeffrey Carter
2012-12-13 7:20 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2012-12-06 9:38 ` Egil Høvik
2012-12-06 19:53 ` Adam Beneschan
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox