Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 06:25:55 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org (Justin T. Gibbs) Cc: cracauer@cons.org, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thread issues Message-ID: <199611251125.GAA11718@hda.hda.com> In-Reply-To: <199611240135.RAA22152@freefall.freebsd.org> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at "Nov 23, 96 05:35:45 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Having played with threads under NT, I must say that I find its APIs both > clean and easy to use. I wonder if we should take a step back and consider > what would be the best interface to supply for our users even if it vastly > differs from a "conventional UNIX thread" implementation. We can always > provide POSIX APIs on top of FreeBSD's native thread APIs. > > Threads and AIO are two features that the people doing embedded systems > with FreeBSD really want. In most cases, they are interested in > performance and time to market, not portability, so designing our own > interfaces would not hinder their efforts. In fact, a cleaner, more logical > set of APIs may reduce their TTM and make FreeBSD even more viable in this > arena. I don't agree. There is enough risk in a FreeBSD aproach that adhering to a standard API is a requirement. Working against an existing spec helps piece-wise implementation also. I have no complaint with a WIN32 thread interface as well, though I prefer to have the POSIX API native. -- Peter Dufault Real-Time Machine Control and Simulation HD Associates, Inc. Voice: 508 433 6936 dufault@hda.com Fax: 508 433 5267
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611251125.GAA11718>