[Nel] NeL Network Engine

Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:33:07 +0800

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:52:21AM +0100, Vincent Archer wrote:
+> According to Leighton Haynes:
+> > I'm not sure if this is a really important issue right now. As many
+> > people have noted, premature optimization is the source of all evil. 
+> 
+> It is somewhat important. There are optimisations that can be done further,
+> but there are also fundamental design issues that reflect how everything
+> else in the server code has to be written.
+> 
+> You do not program an event-driven system like you would on a thread-based
+> system. Converting from one model to another would be horribly painful,
+> which is why the "right" one has to be selected. Once we pick one, we'll
+> have to stick by it, and the more code is produced under a model, the
+> 
+> Which is why the decision about this was deferred until it can no longer
+> be truly avoided.
+
+*ponder*
+
+I can't see the fundamental difference between an event-driven and
+a thread-based model. In an event-driven model , some central arbiter
+gets the input, grabs the data representing the 'entity', processes it, 
+and sends a reply. In a thread-based model, each entitiy is a thread,
+the entity receives a message , processes it, and sends a reply. 
+The fundamental differences, are in the message addressing, and 
+the context switching. 
+
+What are the issues here? So far I've seen only discussion of
+how many threads we can handle, which doesn't seem to be the 
+central issue. What we really need, is a list of the requirements
+for this particular sub-system. (Perhaps they exist somewhere, 
+but I haven't seen them).
+
+
+Leighton...
+
+--
+
+Part-time student. Full-time Programmer. 
+Seeking the 36 hour day and the 10 hour working week.
+(08) 9272 9058 (Home - like I'm ever there)
+0401 335 136 (Mobile - like it's ever on)
+
+