Re: Upcoming time boundary events

In article <101k5lf$39d9f$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 6/2/2025 7:24 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <mn.12937e96a0bc3b12.104627@invalid.skynet.be>,
Marc Van Dyck  <marc.gr.vandyck@invalid.skynet.be> wrote:

on 02/06/2025, Lawrence D'Oliveiro supposed :

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 21:49:59 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

On 5/30/2025 6:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

The irony of it, that the DEC concept requires creating a separate
server process for every client connection,

>
It doesn't.
>
Processes are re-used for task to task servers.

>
Hmm. Presumably the process is kept around for a limited time before being
shut down.
>
What about multiple concurrent connections? You can’t avoid creating extra
processes in that situation.

 
Responding generally, not specifically to Marc, but since I've
plonked the troll, I don't see his responses (I highly suggest
others do the same).
 
But this assertion in particular is silly and deserves a
rebuttal for the benefit of others.
 
I suppose the troll has never heard of event-driven programming,
or asynchronous IO, or, for that matter, threads.  Any of these
allow multiple connections to be served by a single process.

>
For TCP/IP yes.
>
For DECnet task to task??

Yes.

I don't see a way to do that.

Yes, but you're also the guy who didn't see a way to pass an
active TCP connection between processes under VMS, and who tried
to use the 4.4BSD API when I posted example code of how it's
done on Unix as an example.

But please enlighten us.

Mailboxes and QIO?

- Dan C.