>>>> Olivier Galibert writes:
Oh yeah ? I'm really interesting in how using gtk/glib will
make our _LISP_ code thread-safe.
Why do I get the feeling that I've opened a can of worms.
Okay, here's my $0.02. In order for threading to work with emacs-lisp
the following things need to happen. (We're talking relatively long
term here, hence the word roadmap.)
o The OS
First off, the OS itself needs to "support" threads. Most industrial
strength OSes do so. Examples, DG/UX, HP/UX, AIX, Linux, Windoze,
Sun.
o [x]emacs
[x]emacs would need to use a threaded library in order to support
multiple threads of execution within the same process. gtk/glib
would be _one_ solution. Its used extensively in gnome and mozilla.
xemacs code would need to be made mt-safe by mutex-locking out
critical sections of the code.
gtk/glib could provide a new widget set to replace existing ones,
but that's another debate.
o emacs-lisp
the base emacs-lisp would need to provide extended lisp
functionality to interface with the low-level threads library.
This would probably be a package that provides mutex
o emacs-lisp applications
Applications like gnus, w3 which can potentially do multiple
asynchronous fetches in the background would, probably benefit
from an mt emacs-lisp. Issues like how many threads (eg. 1
per newsgroup?) synchronization, mutual exclusion etc would
probably be counter-balanced by improvement in performance and
functionality.
A context switch between two threads in a single process is
considerably cheaper than a context switch between two processes.
Also, all data except for stack and registers are shared between
threads. This makes threading interesting for such apps.
_LISP_ code wouldn't magically become mt-safe, it would need to be
modified to make it so. One would, of course, have the option to
use only a single thread of execution, so existing apps should work
with even with mt emacs-lisp.
Do your homework before
spitting such nonsense damnit.
Now now, there's no need for foul language. Go stand in the corner.