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;
	charsetso-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;
	charsetso-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.&nbsp; I figured that such a thing had to be pretty complex to code.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;[ruby-talk:13079] Thread Safe&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; on 01/03/23, Rogers Gene A Civ 96 CG/SCTOB &lt;gene.rogers / eglin.af.mil&gt; 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.&nbsp; Sorry.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This in one</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>possibility for near future.</FONT>
</P>

<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=2>matz.</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_extPart_001_01C0B3AE.E427D130--