Re: Readiness vs. completion (was: Re: Linux's implementation of poll()not scalable?)

[John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]



Dan Kegel wrote:
> IMHO you're describing a situation where a 'completion notification event'
> (as with aio) would be more appropriate than a 'readiness notification event'
> (as with poll).

I've found that I want both types of events, preferably through the same
interface.  To provide a "completion notification event" interface on
top of an existing nonblocking interface, one needs an "async poll"
mechanism with edge-triggered events with no event coalescing.

You are correct in recognizing NT completion ports from my description. 
While the NT completion port interface is ugly as sin, it gets a number
of performance issues right.

> And, come to think of it, network programmers usually can be categorized
> into the same two groups :-)  Each style of programming is an acquired taste.

I would say that the "completion notification" style is a paradigm
beyond the "readiness notification" style.  I started with the select()
model of network programming and have since learned the clear
superiority of the "completion notificatin" style.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 2147 bytes --]