Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily

In article <677d4e48$0$28053$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
Nicolas George  <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:

Dan Cross, dans le message <vljbvv$gl9$1@reader2.panix.com>, a �crit�:

This, however, does not follow.  I don't see why "poll" is
strictly required for IO concurrency.

>
Well, try to do implement anything non-trivial involving I/O concurrency,
including timeouts, clients causing other clients to abort, etc., with
the common denominator of POSIX threads and come back telling us how you
managed that.

Well, this is rather more involved than what you'd originally
said, which was just IO concurrency.

But if you've got a dedicated IO thread with a known tid, I
don't see why you couldn't do this with
`pthread_cond_timedwait` and signals.

But at this point, I'll gladly admit that `poll` et al may be
more convenient, if not required.

I tried, and stopped trying using threads for I/O concurrency.

I'm not saying it's easy.

- Dan C.