I think that this is the morph scheduler model that is wrong. but unfortunately I'm not good enough in concurrent programming to fix. I remember that once nathanael told me that it was bogus by construction and that he understood how to do a good one. Too bad google took him :) On Dec 24, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Damien Pollet wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 14:27, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
yes but so far none of the moprh class specialised this method.
it's not used => remove it
On Dec 24, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
It depends whether it makes sense or not to have a different threshold for objects.
I'm not convinced by that threshold thing. If you need to update something, either you have realtime constraints, or you just want to limit CPU usage, in which case it's the scheduler's responsibility to respect whatever low priority you give to the update task⦠no?
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project