[interfacekit] Re: BLooper - PLEASE look at...

I'm going to weigh in with Axel and Ingo on this; sorry, Adi.  I had 
misgivings anyway, and Axel and Ingo have done a good job of 
articulating what I wasn't able to. I particularly like the idea of 
being able to simply add ports, although if I understand correctly, 
BWindow does some "special" processing on its messages from app_server; 
it might be nice to provide a way to accomplish that in the proposed 
API.

When Adi and I were talking about this, I found myself wishing for 
wait_for_multiple_objects() -- I think that's the first time I've ever 
really wanted a Windows API available on BeOS. =P  Just out of 
curiousity, Axel, how much work do you think that will require in the 
kernel?

e

>"Adi Oanca" <e2joseph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> http://students.infoiasi.ro/~joseph/BLooperR.html
>> 
>> the first e-mail was not complete!!!
>> 
>> Please, start commenting after you have read BLooperR.html
>
>The main disadvantage, the requirement for polling in BLooper, is 
>caused by the design. Once introduced, we'll never be able to get rid 
>of it (retaining source compatibility). Axel's idea to extend BLooper 
>to deal with more than one port instead enables us to a) avoid polling 
>in the current implementation in case there's only one port, and b) get 

>rid of it completely as soon as we have kernel support for waiting for 
>more than one port.
>
>CU, Ingo


Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the 
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
        -William Pitt, British prime-minister (1759-1806)

Other related posts: