Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: UNIX semantics do permit full support for asynchronous I/O Message-ID: Date: 6 Sep 90 16:53:08 GMT References: <60345@lanl.gov> <27619@nuchat.UUCP> <1990Sep1.185221.8718@eng.umd.edu> <555@siswat.UUCP> <27813@nuchat.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 10 In article schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes: > I was just thinking the same thing. Isn't it the case that > lightweight processes (mach style threads, say) with shared memory for > communication solve the asynch-io problem? I'd prefer that to a new > set of async-io routines, I think. If you have asynchronous I/O, you can implement threads, and vice versa. A simple asynch I/O mechanism, combined with user-mode threads, is quite adequate. The complexities involved in POSIX 1003.4 are slightly (but only slightly) overkill. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com