[226] in java-interest
Re: Threads vs New White Paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Mitchell)
Wed Jun 7 22:13:19 1995
From: johnm@medicus.com (John Mitchell)
To: Arthur.Vanhoff@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur van Hoff)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 18:53:26 PDT
Cc: johnm@medicus.com, java-interest@java.Eng.Sun.COM
In-Reply-To: <9506080027.AA00259@acorn.Eng.Sun.COM>; from "Arthur van Hoff" at Jun 7, 95 5:27 pm
[...]
> The underlying implementation is guaranteed to be preemtive. On platforms
> that do not support thread preemtion (like the Mac), we'll make sure that
> the thread is rescheduled on the next opportunity. In our Mac port we
> check for this on every branch and method call. This "poor-mans" preemtion
> provides you with similar semantics as true preemption.
This is plenty reasonable. Is this actually documented/specified
somewhere?
> Note that as Jon pointed out, threads of the same priority currently
> don't preemt each other. This may change in the future.
[...]
IMHO, this is a Bad Thing(tm) and so I'll throw my $0.03 in to
encourage y'all to change this. :-)
Thanks,
John
P.S. A bunch of us stuck here using, gak!, C++, puke! are very
interested in using Java in a 'standalone' manner. Kudos
to the whole Java team.
-
Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list!
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
