From: Dave (dfisher_at_pophost.com)
Date: 2002-03-14 19:35:41
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:08:10 +0000, Jim Peters wrote:
>This is just one way, and how to structure this whole thing internally
>is a big question. Dave has been working on a framework based on
>multiple threads with pipes and/or sockets to communicate between them
>(if I've understood it right). He has some working code in C++ for
Yes, that's correct.
>Linux. However I'm more used to an event-driven kind of approach,
>where you have one thread, and all the objects have call-backs, and
>when data is available, you call the call-back of the next object,
>saying "here is a new sample for you to process".
The reason I focused on pipes and sockets as the method of data transfer was
because I had process-to-process communication in mind, not just the sharing of
data between threads of one process. But I'm not married to any of this; it
was just the "first pass" approach I used and may not be the best
cross-platform solution. Pipes are portable, but there is no correlary for
local sockets on windows (in which case, pipes can be substituted or TCP
sockets). I'm not in favor of using TCP as the base transport mechanism,
though, as I feel the overhead is not worth the gain. A TCP mechanism can be
added later if that is really wanted. These are the design questions that we
will have to solidify in our OO analysis which I had really wanted to start
this week (fleshing out class structures and using Doug's questions as a
foundation, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buildcheapeeg/message/2298).
Dave.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:41 BST