[squeak-dev] Re: Are Squeak processes pre-emptive?

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Apr 14 23:05:50 UTC 2010

On 4/14/2010 3:45 PM, Josh Gargus wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Muller<ma.chris.m at gmail.com>  writes:
>> Chris>  I agree with Eliot about the merit of the approach where, when one
>> Chris>  approach permits the other so that, effectively, both are available at
>> Chris>  the image, but the other approach does not, that there is merit in the
>> Chris>  approach that provides choice up in the image-level.  Given my limited
>> Chris>  experience, however, I still cannot see a use-case where such
>> Chris>  fine-grained control is useful, so "bug" is a stronger word than I
>> Chris>  would know to use at this point..
>> It would be nice to presume that if I'm running, I'll stay running,
>> interrupted only by either a higher priority process, or me saying
>> "yield".
> Or blocking on a mutex, or waiting for bytes from a socket or a file, or etc. etc.
> Why would it "be nice" to be able to presume that?

For the same reasons that Tweak goes to great length to effectively 
implement the same model :-)

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list