comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » 6.3 reactions?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: 6.3 reactions? [message #48689 is a reply to message #48594]

Fri, 05 May 2006 09:24

JD Smith
Messages: 850
Registered: December 1999

Senior Member

On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:25:57 -0700, codepod wrote:

> JD Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 05:52:53 +0000, Michael Galloy wrote:
>
>>> Everyone will have their own favorites, but I think the IDL-IDL bridge
>>> will be a feature that really adds something to IDL. It will allow you
>>> to start new "threads". So, for example, to do some processing while the
>>> controls of your GUI are still responsible to user interaction. Or
>>> simply to farm out several different tasks to run independently.
>>
>> Does this really start an entirely new IDL process, or is there some
>> kind of lightweight user-accessible threading support now available?
>> I'm imagining the kind of havoc which could result if multiple user
>> threads vie for window ids and other common resources.
>>
> For each IDL-IDL Bridge object you create, a child process of your IDL
> session is created and it is executing its own interpreter. IDL
> commands are dispatched in either a synchronous or asynchronous mode
> (which will trigger an event when completed). While a simple interface
> is presented to exchange data between the processes, internally shared
> memory is used so the transfer is fairly efficeint.
>
> As Mike pointed out in his original post, this is a great solution to
> perform background processing while maintaining an interactive user
> interface. Also it provides a quick method to create a "clean" idl
> session to generate save files and the like. And with the proliferation
> of multi-core processors, the bridge provides the IDL user a simple way
> to exploit some of the capabilities of modern hardware.

Very interesting. Since it uses shared memory, can you inherit from
the IDL_IDLBridge class, and have the entire object structure
modifiable from both processes at the same time (which of course would
have its dangers if not orchestrated carefully)? I also take it that
all of the color/window/file handle/etc. resources would be completely
separate, not shared.

JD

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		6.3 reactions? By: Richard French on Mon, 01 May 2006 20:31
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: codepod on Fri, 05 May 2006 07:25
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: JD Smith on Fri, 05 May 2006 09:24
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Haje Korth on Thu, 04 May 2006 09:28
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: R.Bauer on Thu, 04 May 2006 01:26
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: codepod on Thu, 11 May 2006 13:15
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: wem on Thu, 11 May 2006 10:26
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Haje Korth on Thu, 11 May 2006 10:06
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Foldy Lajos on Wed, 10 May 2006 10:24
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Haje Korth on Wed, 10 May 2006 09:33
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Craig Markwardt on Wed, 10 May 2006 08:23
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Mark Hadfield on Tue, 09 May 2006 16:21
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: JD Smith on Tue, 09 May 2006 11:54
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: JD Smith on Tue, 09 May 2006 11:59
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: David Fanning on Tue, 09 May 2006 10:50
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: codepod on Tue, 09 May 2006 10:30
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Richard French on Mon, 08 May 2006 21:23
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: JD Smith on Mon, 08 May 2006 13:25
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: codepod on Mon, 08 May 2006 07:29
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: David Fanning on Fri, 05 May 2006 09:55

Previous Topic:	Re: IDLWAVE and starting a comment on a new line
Next Topic:	Re: changing a datatype in a structure

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Oct 11 15:57:30 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.40233 seconds