On 01.09.2012, at 19:01, Seth Willits wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Andreas Grosam wrote:
>
>> On 31.08.2012, at 19:35, Seth Willits wrote:
>>
>> Thank you very much Seth. It's a feasible approach.
>> Your idea inspired me to a simple solution which is demonstrated in the
>> running exa
At 10:08 AM +0200 8/31/12, Andreas Grosam wrote:
I have a number of operations that will be received serially. Each
operation can be processed concurrently with respect to each other.
I would like to invoke the completion blocks for each operation in
the order as they have been received.
I'm
On Sep 1, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Andreas Grosam wrote:
> On 31.08.2012, at 19:35, Seth Willits wrote:
>
> Thank you very much Seth. It's a feasible approach.
> Your idea inspired me to a simple solution which is demonstrated in the
> running example below.
>
> There is only one caveat: each pending
On 31.08.2012, at 19:35, Seth Willits wrote:
Thank you very much Seth. It's a feasible approach.
Your idea inspired me to a simple solution which is demonstrated in the running
example below.
There is only one caveat: each pending completion handler occupies a thread.
#include
#include
#inc
On Aug 31, 2012, at 1:08 AM, Andreas Grosam wrote:
> I have a number of operations that will be received serially. Each operation
> can be processed concurrently with respect to each other. I would like to
> invoke the completion blocks for each operation in the order as they have
> been receiv
Hi All!
I have a number of operations that will be received serially. Each operation
can be processed concurrently with respect to each other. I would like to
invoke the completion blocks for each operation in the order as they have been
received.
I'm searching a simple approach to achieve t
