Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!csdev!ll1a!spl1!laidbak!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!daitc!jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil
From: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT & "threads"
Message-ID: <8803@spl1.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 16:51:52 GMT
References: <10736@reed.UUCP> <363@thor.wright.EDU> <401@halley.UUCP>
Sender: news@spl1.UUCP
Reply-To: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger)
Organization: Defense Applied Information Technology Center
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews)

In article <401@halley.UUCP>, bc@halley (Bill Crews) writes:
>CICS has been around for a decade or so.  Its tasks are threads.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here: CICS tasks can
only share address space, they cannot get a separate address space
even if protection needed and overhead justified.  Unix processes can
only use a separate address space, they cannot share address space
even if well behaved, trusted, and frequently executed.  Mach process
constructs offer the union of CICS and UNIX possibilities, so you can
use the right tool for the job.

-- Jon

Jonathan Krueger
Netnews license #12019831 (expires June, 1989)
If you see this poster being operated in an unsafe manner, call
	...uunet!daitc!jkrueger  jkrueger@daitc.arpa  (703) 998-4777