Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!pae
From: pae@athena.mit.edu (Philip Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: RPC Technologies
Summary: Are non-preemptive ports permitted?
Keywords: NCS Threads Preemption
Message-ID: <1990Sep10.182341.11165@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 90 18:23:41 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 22

In <1990Sep7.153710@apollo.HP.COM> mishkin@apollo.HP.COM (Nathaniel Mishkin) writes:

>> Again, let me paraphrase to see if I understand what you're saying here:
>>
>>	"A multi-threaded implementation of NCS must use preemptive threads."
>>
>>The alternative to this is to impose the semantic limitation that the user's
>>appliction code must not run for "too long". This would qualify as a pretty
>>arbitrary limitation to put on a distributed applications programmer.

> I agree.  That's why I am (and OSF is) an advocate for a standard threading
> interface with a portable implementation.
> [...]

Your response didn't address the question at hand. What are you going
to do until PThreads (or some multi-threaded standard) is available in
all environments?  Specifically, are ports of NCS permitted to use
non-preemptive threads?

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.