danieldasilvaferreira / gmail.com wrote:
> ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure we should limit to use them on Threadlet or not.
> > 
> > 1. Threads and Threadlets can share same synchronization tools
> >     -> Good: no learning efforts
> >     -> Bad: People can cause sync issues with mis-using or missing syncs
> 
> > 2. Introduce Threadlets special synchronization tools and introduce special rules communicate with other threads
> >     -> Good: people can only use good tools (such as Queues)
> >     -> Bad: we need to learn new tools and rules
> 
> I'm all for (2) for the reasons I already mentioned:
> 
> * Specially the big minus that we have in (1): "People can cause sync issues"
> * Using only good tools is a big +.
> * Not causing sync issues is a big ++.
> * The fact that people will be forced to learn new tools and rules is also a big + for me.
>   * It draws the border between the old async scenario and the new one we are trying to implement.

No, I'm against making major changes.   For 2, I mean we limit
usage to queues for now, which is a a subset of 1; but I'm also
OK implementing mutex/condvar support for 1.

Having less things to learn is better for adoption and improving
usefulness

> > If we think Threadlet is a special Thread (and the name indicates it), 
> then (1) seems nice for me.
> 
> I agree `Threadlet` has that implication.
> 
> Since we prefer to use names already in use in the async world
> what about call it: 
> 
> **Lane**

Too obscure and not obvious for me; do non-Lua people know about it?

Terms such as process, thread, task, actor are already in wide use
across several different languages; so it should be obvious.

> * Lane meaning: a narrow road or division of a road

When comparing to physical objects, it seems more appropriate for
something like a channel or pipe.

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>