[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: local vs global object IDs

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: local vs global object IDs
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:51:26 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i


Thanks for clarifying the issue.

On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> As soon as you are at this stage, everything becomes easy.  Tasks can now
> reliably detect that a persistent task was restarted, because sending the
> message fails.  Now they can contact the task server and ask what the new
> thread ID for this thread is.  The task server can provide it.  Note that
> the task server can always try to allocate identical thread IDs, to boost
> performance by making remappings unnecessary.


If we make it possible to start sub task servers which would basically
act as proxys for the real task server, we could very much use such a
server dedicated to the set of persistent task we want to run.

The purpose of this task server would be to "remember" persistent task
IDs.  It would have to create a mapping between the task IDs it exposes
to persistent tasks and the corresponding "real" task IDs.  Therefore,
it should also be able to remember that a given task ID correspond to a
given non-persistent task which may be useful when restoring a
persistent task.

I like this solution better than the persistent bit trick since it does
not impose any requirement on the way the base task server should be


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]