From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com>
Subject: Re: Buffers or POs?
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:32:41 GMT
Date: 2005-10-17T19:32:41+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <t%S4f.9359$hY6.9026@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1129573392.886254.115610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Tom wrote:
> I have the problem that the OS provides services for buffers which are
> similar to Protected Objects. What is better to use in terms of
> performance the provided OS services or a self-implemented buffer
> utilising Protected Objects.
A protected buffer, such as PragmARC.Queue_[Un]Bounded, will be much more
portable. (http://home.earthlink.net/~jrcarter010/pragmarc.htm)
As for performance, you should go through the same process for any performance
related feature:
What are the timing requirements?
Does the use of the portable solution meet those requirements?
If so, use the portable solution.
If not, does the use of the OS-dependent solution meet those requirements?
If so, decide if you want to tie your system to the platform, or find another
way to meet your requirements.
If not, the buffer is not the problem. Find and fix the problem, and repeat.
--
Jeff Carter
"I wave my private parts at your aunties."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
13
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-17 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-17 18:23 Buffers or POs? Tom
2005-10-17 19:32 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2005-10-23 3:53 ` Steve
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox