Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!shelby!bloom-beacon!pae
From: pae@athena.mit.edu (Philip Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: RPC Technologies
Message-ID: <1990Aug16.143557.6579@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 90 14:35:57 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.231646.17415@athena.mit.edu> <13710001@hpspdra.HP.COM>
Sender: Phil Earnhardt (onecom!wldrdg!pae)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 22

In article <13710001@hpspdra.HP.COM> burdick@hpspdra.HP.COM (Matt Burdick) writes:
>> Mishkin thinks Asynchrony is hard to understand; it is not available
>> in NCS.  Why not give the designer the choice?
>
>This seems pretty lame: some people think that threads are easier or
>cleaner to use - yet Netwise doesn't offer that ability.  Does this
>mean that NetWise should "give the designer the choice" by offering
>threads?
>
>						-matt
>-- 
>Matt Burdick                |   Hewlett-Packard
>burdick@hpspd.spd.hp.com    |   Intelligent Networks Operation

Please reread my earlier posting--you have a couple of factual errors.
Netwise does support multiple threads. Also, any multi-threaded approach must
still use asynchronous semantics. You would have to be using both threads and
asynchronous semantics. How could this be cleaner and easier?

Phil Earnhardt          Netwise, Inc.  2477 55th St.  Boulder, CO 80301
Phone:303-442-8280      UUCP: onecom!wldrdg!pae
My opinions do not reflect any official position of Netwise.