- From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:42:49 +0100
Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 21:22 -0600, Dimitri Glazkov pisze: > Guys, I think the point was that it's not unreasonable to have > synchronous API. The argument about slow/busy devices is valid, but I > still think the developer should have the choice of either going with > a simple query/receive calls in their code as opposed to braving > complexity of asynchronous API. I fully agree with this point and do > believe that if it's a low-hanging fruit, it should be included into > the implementation. Allowing the script to wait until the transaction completes would be enough to provide synchronization, wouldn't it? A stubborn programmer can still do it: make a transaction set an event upon completion and make the script loop until that event is set. Upon the theory that the transaction in question is a quickie, it would be quite acceptable, especially if the script engine fiddled with thread priorities a bit. If I am right, it is not such a big issue after all. Chris
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 07:42:49 UTC