OpenEuphoria

2. Re: task msging

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 14, 2009
• 1948 views

I think there is an error in the code? You have atom="*".

Further, what is suppose to happen if you simply call task_get_var(), i.e. w/o any parameters? task_var_list, task_get_que and task_que_list also have all parameters defaulted to something, thus you can call any of them w/o any parameters.

Jeremy

4. Re: task msging

• Posted by ryanj Sep 14, 2009
• 1867 views
• Last edited Sep 15, 2009

Actually, I think it can. Any time a task calls a routine, that routine is running as that task, and a call to task_self() should tell you what task called that routine. I don't know why i didn't think to say this before.

Try running this test to confirm it. Does this look correct to everyone? This proves that a subroutine doesn't need the task_id passed to it, it can get it with task_self().

Example:

 
include std/text.e 
 
puts(1, "Test to see if task_self() works in subroutines...\n") 
 
procedure print_task_id(atom id) 
    atom testid 
    testid = task_self() 
     
    puts(1, "id=" & sprint(id) & ", testid=" & sprint(testid)& "\n") 
end procedure 
 
procedure task_test() 
	for i = 1 to 10 do 
		print_task_id(task_self()) 
		task_yield() 
	end for 
	puts(1, "Press any key to continue...") 
	while 1 do 
        if get_key() then 
    		exit 
    	end if 
    	task_yield() 
	end while 
	abort(0) 
end procedure 
 
atom t1 = task_create(routine_id("task_test"), {}) 
atom t2 = task_create(routine_id("task_test"), {}) 
atom t3 = task_create(routine_id("task_test"), {}) 
atom t4 = task_create(routine_id("task_test"), {}) 
atom t5 = task_create(routine_id("task_test"), {}) 
atom t6 = task_create(routine_id("task_test"), {}) 
 
task_schedule(t1, {1, 1}) 
task_schedule(t2, {1, 1}) 
task_schedule(t3, {1, 1}) 
task_schedule(t4, {1, 1}) 
task_schedule(t5, {1, 1}) 
task_schedule(t6, {1, 1}) 
 
while 1 do 
    task_yield() 
end while 
 

6. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 15, 2009
• 1913 views

Ok, task msg handler no longer accepts fromid in functions or procedures, it identifies who the task is, and tasks cannot spoof being another task.

To remove msgs to tasks, i wrote

-- This is to remove any vars and queues sent to dead tasks. 
-- "*" will clear all terminated task's vars, unscheduled msgs will remain. 
-- Specifying the task_id will remove those/that's task_id's vars, running or not. 
--  _clean("*") , _clean(1) , _clean({1,5}) 
-- This does not remove msgs sent BY the deceased task, only msgs sent TO the deceased task. 
export procedure task_msg_clean(object who = "*") 

Those interested, refresh:

http://designerthinking.com/temp/taskmsgs.e

useless

8. Re: task msging

• Posted by jaygade Sep 15, 2009
• 1829 views

Umm, I think she's just abbreviating. At least, that was kind of apparent to me.

10. Re: task msging

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 15, 2009
• 1820 views

LOL, glad I wasn't the only one, though I parsed 'que' as 'that' (no accent mark, right?), which makes a little more sense. I agree that the full word should be spelled out.

Matt

12. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 15, 2009
• 1837 views

Ok, then, i updated

http://designerthinking.com/temp/taskmsgs.e

to reflect the most important part of this, so everyone in every language can understand, and Matt might stop laughing at me.

useless

14. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 15, 2009
• 1784 views

Gosh, i'm sorry, but i used "queue" properly, and abbreviated it to "que" for shorter function and variable names, and that's what you have to post here about? And you get upset when i don't like your

When will YOU give it a rest? I thought i was contributing to Euphoria with needed code, when you proove yet again i am only a joke and a side show. You gave zero constructive feedback. If i did spell out all the words, and switched back and forth from "queue" (the msg queue) to "cue" (the individual msg, which i think is wrong), you'd LOL at that too!

useless

16. Re: task msging

• Posted by Fendaril Sep 15, 2009
• 1754 views

Nice work Kat.

18. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 15, 2009
• 1761 views

"we correct if for them"? I am merely questioning your use of the words, please do not take this personally, even though i am quoting you and replying to your post.

I abbreviated "queue" to "que". I abbreviate "euphoria" to "eu". I know "que" is a spanish word, i took several years of spanish in school, and it's an important enough language that i wrote code in Tiggr to do translations. At least getting a task msg is a lot like asking the task msg handler "what did taskx send me?". Never the less, i was not writing in spanish. When i write in php or mirc, i do not adhere to eu syntax, keywords, or style.

I object to kinz's icon suggestion because it is "eu" only in russian.

Yeas, i hear the same thing when the neighbor commanded his dogs to attack me on my property, day after day for years. It wasn't personal. And my threshold for Matt is zero after his behavior on the devlist, so i have little incentive to explain my use of words when he cannot understand the word "to".

useless

20. Re: task msging

• Posted by ghaberek (admin) Sep 15, 2009
• 1715 views

Yes, and I meant exactly that. You will see examples all over this forum of a person posting code, then someone else correcting it, often saying "you did something wrong here, this is how it should be done". It's helpful; I see nothing wrong with it. By entering into a public forum, one should understand that content can and will be criticized and/or corrected by other members.

I think the general consensus is that "que" is not an abbreviation of "queue"; though I suppose that's debatable. I believe "eu" on the other hand, is inherently understood to be an abbreviation of "euphoria". I did not know you abbreviated it on purpose, I simply thought you made a mistake, and I was just trying to help.

What happened to you is a downright shame. And it's too bad you and Matt can't get along; I could only imaging what the two of you could come up with if you ever collaborated on something.

Regardless, we need to start keeping this personal banter to a minimum. Lately threads have been running longer than required just because one person didn't like what the other had to say. Perhaps we need some sort of PM system, or personal talk pages...

-Greg

22. Re: task msging

• Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Sep 15, 2009
• 1711 views

By the way, I understood the words that you used but I did not understand the meaning you give the phrases. However I do now. After some discussion it turns out that ...

24. Re: task msging

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 15, 2009
• 1724 views

The whole confusion (as I recall) wasn't about TO or not, it was the word parent and somehow that became to mean the parent task. Through everyone being totally confused about what anyone else was talking about the conversation went south in debating little words like TO because everyone had their own little idea of what was really happening behind the scenes. It was in the context of an application loading a DLL. So the DLL would call yield in the context of the main application's scheduler instead of it's own internal scheduler (which doesn't/never did exist), which in turn is the problem of calling task_yield() in the DLL (prior to NOP change)).

Jeremy

26. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 15, 2009
• 1689 views
• Last edited Sep 16, 2009

Since you didn't click "reply with quote", i don't know who you are asking. Are you not understanding how task_yield() works? Or not understanding how the DLL task_yield() was (mis)understood to work/(not)proposed?

useless

28. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 15, 2009
• 1761 views
• Last edited Sep 16, 2009

And you still have not learned i do understand that. I have a number of apps setting up tasks, and until one of them hits a blocking OS call, they all run 0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4,etc. When running just one task, it has ALWAYS run 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,etc, do you understand? It's the way i task_scheduled them. Until they cannot complete in alloted time, and don't yield, the sequence of executions aren't mixed up. And yes, for the 400th time, i understand they can get mixed up, and i don't care, but that's how they have been running.

And this is what i call abuse, he tells me i have no clue, over and over and over, yet my code runs the way i want it to, and the way i describe it. And he'll tell me yet again, this is the way it is, it doesn't happen like that. He will attempt to keep pounding into my head that my code doesn't run like he says it should, no matter that he has never seen my applications here. No matter what i do, it isn't happening correctly, the Matt way, unless it's not like i want it.

useless

30. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 16, 2009
• 1683 views

What did i describe incorrectly?

Again, you didn't read what i wrote, you baiting sob. I said "No matter what i do, it isn't happening correctly, the Matt way, unless it's not like i want it" meaning you will call anything i do incorrect unless i do it your way, in which case it's not doing what i want. You must be the one who wrote the first news.ex, which i sped up 10 times by doing it my way.

useless

32. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 16, 2009
• 1659 views

Well, the specific set of circumstances i optomise to result in greater speed, distributed over the tasks in such a way that it doesn't always work like you say it does. Why are you fighting this?

Read up where i gave you the sequence of 0,1,0,1,0,1 etc. Task1 yielded to task0 repeatedly, and that is what i wanted to happen. To you, this is "wrong" because the taskmanager is supposed to do that however it feels like, not how i want it to happen. If the code runs well, then according to you: i've screwed it up, it's not reality, you must deny it.

I certainly didn't write news.ex. I wasn't even aware of it until there was a bug report filed about it crashing on linux (reported a week or two before you started working on it, IIRC), and then you enhanced the http library to be non-blocking. That was good work. However, that doesn't have any real bearing on the issue at hand here, which is how multitasking operates.

Matt

[/quote]

I do not think that is the issue at hand. I think the issue is that you cannot leave me alone. You must dispute me at every turn, and find ways to "prove" you are correct in the face of a different reality.

useless

34. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 16, 2009
• 1669 views

It's not at all difficult to understand. I don't know why you think i cannot understand that. What i don't feel like doing is discuss ANY thing with you. You're the one who could not fathom the meaning of "to", why should i bother telling you how http.e can be made to crash, or give you the code to fix it? Why give you any context AT ALL, seeing as how this is how talking to you goes on. This conversation went on far too long on the devlist, and now it's here. You ran me off the devlist, i can only assume you mean to do the same here. There's nothing for us to discuss, yet every time you post, you haveto say that i don't understand something, or i don't work well with people who prefer to pick me apart than get on with the coding.

We never got past what "to" meant, and your incessant pasting from the source code and docs. We never got to the context. We never got to anything useful. The statements were not general to my programming style, they were specific. It was you who took off on tangents and generalised them. To make sure that doesn't happen, you may have noticed the task manager code isn't on my site any more, neither is the http.e fixes, or news4.ex or news5.ex.

Hey Matt, you are WRONG. And i never learn from those i have no respect in. So you can give it up. You know how i can get you to post to a thread? I post first.

useless

36. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 16, 2009
• 1701 views

I don't believe there was a point. What was it, and why didn't you state it up front? We can't read your mind, you know.

useless

38. Re: task msging

• Posted by useless Sep 16, 2009
• 1635 views

Why would i do that? He's on the devlist when i explained it there. Besides, i was only looking for a reason Matt might have to be giving me so much of his attention. It's not doing me any good or Euphoria.

useless