>"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 1) Use a cleverer strategy to place the stacks in the virtual address
>> space, e.g. have heap and stack growing towards each other.
>But I also think that we shouldn't care about that right now - that
>looks like something we should play with at a later point, when
>everything is working well.
>Then, I am in favour of Ingo's solution to have a maximum thread limit
>per application at which point one thread can take over the duties of
>more than one window (even if he has proposed that for bitmaps).
Well, that's a nice idea and speaking of CPUs as you mentioned, the limit
could be set to the number of CPUs available as more threads wouldn't do any
good anyway.
--
Massimiliano Origgi
http://www.intuiware.com mailto:max@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Squeezer 2.2 NOW available!
WorkspaceSwitcher 2.2 available!