[fpc-devel] Linux Signals

Andrew Brunner andrew.t.brunner at gmail.com
Sun Jan 2 16:26:07 CET 2011

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
<michael at freepascal.org> wrote:
> All webservers I know use polling on unix, and they are what you might call
> 'high availablility' environments.

There is a big difference between HA and HP :-)  While they are
relationally proportional the cost of HA is minimized with efficient
performance designed apps.

> If your design is good, it should not be too much of a problem to separate
> the IO from the rest of your handling, and then all the rest of your code
> need not know whether it is polling or messaging that's being used.

Yes.  Signalling is separate from processing using custom (thread
safe) caching FIFO ptr lists :-)  One list per event type.

I recognize that no self respecting Linux buff would stoop so low as
to copy anything microsoft.  But event driven principals aren't owned
by ms and gang.  Event driven engineering is totally ideal for network
sockets because you never know if/when data will arrive.

I also want to assert that ideal engineering principals, no matter
who/where they come from must be seriously considered with extreme
diligence as the lack of such is, at its core, the main reason why it
has taken Linux so long to become widely adopted.

Microsoft has exercised ZERO restraint in picking off technologies and
implementing them in their products even with disregard to
intellectual property laws.

Ask yourself - why is it then we still see resistance in general Linux
land to adopting good engineering principals?  You know, along those
lines, it could be possible, that at least in this case, Linux was up
against IP law to which ms has asserted claim...  If that is true
as/if in this case I could see the hand being cut off to save the rest
- and we are absolutely stuck with ePoll from now until 10 years after
the claim was filed

More information about the fpc-devel mailing list