OpenEuphoria

Re: Someone changed my Thread Manager writeup?

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Aug 10, 2005
• 542 views

On 10 Aug 2005, at 7:10, Matt Lewis wrote:

> 
> 
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com>
> 
> Al Getz wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > 
> > When i posted my Thread Manager this morning the writeup i sent with
> > it was this:
> > 
> >   Dont let the small file size fool you...this 1200 byte Thread Manager
> >   takes
> >   care of background processing allowing your app to function normally even
> >   during long operations like file saves.  Start 1 or 1000 threads while the
> >   user can still click buttons and move the window around, all while the
> >   Marquee control shows there are still pending operations to be completed.
> > 
> > 
> > When i see it posted, the writeup got changed to this:
> > 
> >   A simple technique for simulating multiple threads for his WinClass
> >   library, though it could likely be used with any GUI library. It
> >   allows your app to function normally even during long operations
> >   like file saves. Run numerous background threads while the user can
> >   still click buttons and move the window around. His demo has a Marquee
> >   control that shows there are still pending operations to be completed.
> >   Note: there is no scheduling mechanism. Just the call stack.
> >   Real O/S threads are not used. 
> > 
> > 
> > How did this get changed and who did it and why?
> 
> Obviously, Rob did it.  He often edits the descriptions.  His description
> is a bit less misleading, IMHO.  The lib doesn't really do much.  It's just a
> way to see how long things have been going on since the last time you checked.
>
> If it's been long enough, the user makes a call to the GUI lib to check for
> any
> events that have been queued up.  I might have summarized it like this:
> 
> "A library to help keep track of how long a task has been working, so that you
> can check for user events to avoid blocking the GUI."
> 
> Not that it isn't useful, but it's not really threads at all, since threads
> would imply some sort of scheduling mechanism, as noted by Rob.

Al, i thought you were far more on the right track with your "window server". I 
was serious, not making fun, when i said you'd reinvented windows 3.1. In 
essence, you had done everyone using a threads a favor when you got the 
premptive taskmanager (Eu thread controller) for the desktop (the Eu gui), 
and could spawn as many "run ex*.exe 'filename.ew'" as needed. I'd have 
stayed with that thread of development.

Kat