|
Julien Vehent on 7 Mar 2011 14:08:00 -0800
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] [OT] waiting for a socket/event vs. waiting for a socket/event
|
- From: Julien Vehent <julien@linuxwall.info>
- To: Philadelphia Linux User's Group Discussion List <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
- Subject: Re: [PLUG] [OT] waiting for a socket/event vs. waiting for a socket/event
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:07:53 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=linuxwall.info; h= mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:references:message-id; s=lnw-dkim; bh=Fgz9d vHSM1qdE3GQ0pvN73xsRN4kSAz25NvUjmLHwSo=; b=muJXyFLJKlPKSx8CLXXFB kf2FfKSMTNjm3bktqstivGhlALnb/ISuooz48l6O5O4fJhuLmnAvlg0syKVtZd9l Ky9fivc+OXfPQKz6mWbmYjB7tzXaClz4PH6vcAHwZ7JEQYMa6XTIBvDDtPeGvenK tDi/6nW6B+soYPnBcSLpqs=
- Organization: linuxwall.info
- Reply-to: Philadelphia Linux User's Group Discussion List <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
- Sender: plug-bounces@lists.phillylinux.org
- User-agent: Linuxwall Roundcube Webmail/0.5
That's a good question indeed... I personally think that a process
should not be waiting at all, it should use an event notification
engine, such as epoll or kqueue, and do something else in the mean time.
does that help ? :)
Julien
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:57:18 -0500, K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
One of my pet peeves about colloquial American English is the use of
"waiting on" when what is meant is "waiting for" - as in "I'll be
waiting on you downstairs" to which I am often tempted to reply
"Thank
you, but I don't intend to dine downstairs."
Does a process wait for a socket/event or does a process wait on a
socket/event?
Thank you very much.
-- Bhaskar
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug