Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-05-11 at 16:35:58 [+0200], Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> > > wrote: > [...] > > What do you guys think, does that sound like a good idea? > After introducing wait_for_objects() I figured that it would be a > useful > addition to BLooper to also be able to handle other events than > messages > (FDs, semaphores, ports, threads, timers). While not that complicated > to > implement, it would still be a considerable extension of the API. I > think > it'd be better to wait until after R1. Why not making the BMessageRunner a bit smarter, and use a local version whenever possible? This would not require any API changes, would cause less use of global resources, and would make those timers much more precise and cheaper as well. In other words (there is no "an" before "other", stippi, btw :-)), each BLooper would get a time based event queue similar to what stippi proposed (just with port_count(), instead of the BMessageQueue lock). Bye, Axel.