Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!postgres!jas
From: jas@postgres.uucp (James Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Asynchronous I/O under UNIX
Message-ID: <20880@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 89 18:08:53 GMT
References: <932@crash.cts.com> <6679@lynx.UUCP>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jas@postgres.berkeley.edu (James Shankland)
Organization: The Eddie Group
Lines: 13

In article <6679@lynx.UUCP> m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) writes:
>peterson@crash.cts.com (John Peterson) writes:

>... in fact, if I had threads, I don't think I'd
>want or need a separate kernel-supported async I/O mechanism.

Yes!  I strongly agree, and it sure is nice to hear someone else taking
this position.  I consider asynchronous I/O a hack to compensate for the
absence of sufficiently lightweight processes.  Of course, one person's
spartan elegance is another's semantic impoverishment, but I consider
it a cleaner, clearer programming model.

jas