This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_ extPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset so-8859-1" Hello, Thanks for the assessment. I figured that such a thing had to be pretty complex to code. Implementations of TCL are said to be thread safe (as in AOLServer) but I wonder if that's an accurate description of what actually exists. I think that they actually keep a pool of available interpreters (if I'm incorrect someone please correct me) ready for use by a thread in that case the interpreter itself is run on a single thread, just kept around and ready. I guess I need to look a bit further into the issue. Thanks, ~gar -----Original Message----- From: matz / zetabits.com [mailto:matz / zetabits.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:19 PM To: ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org Subject: [ruby-talk:13112] Re: Thread Safe Hi, In message "[ruby-talk:13079] Thread Safe" on 01/03/23, Rogers Gene A Civ 96 CG/SCTOB <gene.rogers / eglin.af.mil> writes: |Here's a question (stupid, maybe): Not stupid at all. |Does anyone know if ruby is thread safe? In short, no. Sorry. I'd like to support it, but it's technically pretty hard. Ruby/Java runs Ruby interpreter on single thread, and every other thread communicates with the thread via queue. This in one possibility for near future. matz. ------_ extPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130 Content-Type: text/html; charset so-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12"> <TITLE>RE: [ruby-talk:13112] Re: Thread Safe</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Hello,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks for the assessment. I figured that such a thing had to be pretty complex to code. Implementations of TCL are said to be thread safe (as in AOLServer) but I wonder if that's an accurate description of what actually exists. I think that they actually keep a pool of available interpreters (if I'm incorrect someone please correct me) ready for use by a thread in that case the interpreter itself is run on a single thread, just kept around and ready. I guess I need to look a bit further into the issue.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>~gar</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: matz / zetabits.com [mailto:matz / zetabits.com]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:19 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: [ruby-talk:13112] Re: Thread Safe</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>In message "[ruby-talk:13079] Thread Safe"</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> on 01/03/23, Rogers Gene A Civ 96 CG/SCTOB <gene.rogers / eglin.af.mil> writes:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>|Here's a question (stupid, maybe):</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Not stupid at all.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>|Does anyone know if ruby is thread safe?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>In short, no. Sorry. I'd like to support it, but it's technically</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>pretty hard.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Ruby/Java runs Ruby interpreter on single thread, and every other</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>thread communicates with the thread via queue. This in one</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>possibility for near future.</FONT> </P> <P> <FONT SIZE=2>matz.</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_ extPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130--