- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:12:39 +0100
2007/12/11, Krzysztof ?elechowski: > > 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. It'd only work in a multi-thread environment; otherwise, script might be executed synchronously in response to user-input triggered events. For example, I played a bit with PalmOS programming a few years ago (before they release the Tungsten series). At that time (might have changed since then), there were only two threads: one to receive and queue user-input events and the other where your code was running (with an "event loop" to consume pending events). In these conditions, simulating a synchronous API with an asynchronous one (might happen: send data over the network and having an event back for the response) and a loop don't work, your loop has to be your event loop, where you would queue back every event that's not telling you your asynchronous call has "returned". -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 06:12:39 UTC