Peter Hansen wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: > >> Peter Hansen wrote: >> > My question was in the context of the OP's situation. What >> possible use >> > for 1000 OS threads could he have? >> >> Is this a language thing? Surely you realize that "what possible >> use could <thing> be" carries an insinuation that <thing> is not >> such a good idea. > > Obviously. Is it no longer permissible to question someone's approach > to doing something? > > You're questioning my approach to inquiring after the OP's requirements, > and clearly you believe there is a better way to do it. Wonderful. You > may even be right. It's also off-topic.
I'm just arguing against the notion that a couple thousands threads is generally a bad idea; if you didn't mean to suggest that, then I misread you. There are a lot of neat ways to do things that use one-or-two threads per thing-they-can-support. In days past such methods did not scale well, but on modern systems that is no longer true. -- --Bryan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
