Nicely done, Mike.
Using Apache for this is a good solution - it's already set up to herd
workers in a way with CGI, and it handles the forking so we don't have to.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
____________________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
Mike Bonner wrote:
The last thing I did this way was more like a seti online type of work
load.
My web server is on the same machine as my LC in this case, so I had lc
create individual data files for the web server to go through, used the
load command to tell the web server which file it was, and turned it loose
with a "with message.." so that when the web server returned results, a
message to handle the results would fire.
In this way, the web server handles most of the load, spawns threads and lc
server instances (could be php, perl, whatever) and my app continues on its
merry way, offloading another chunk.
So, yes I used files to make some of it easier, and the web server handed
the results back directly on completion. I could have gone an entirely
file based method, where the results were dropped into files by the web
server, then re-assembled after completion.
Queue order in this specific case didn't matter. Each chunk was designated
a job number, and the results were then shoved back together in the same
order.
For the example here, race conditions did not apply.
All the webserver method does is use apache, rather than spawning worker
processes, but the end result is the same, but the threading capability is
already set up. All one must do is write the code to do the actual
processing, and return the result. This is what I would like to see built
in to lc.
Another thought just occurred to me. Perhaps it could be made stack
based.. go to stack "whatever" as new thread. (with the option for
invisible, etc still available) that way, all the scripts of a stack could
be accessible. So, if you had a stack that you were using for a progress
bar, you could easily modify the behavior of the bar. I think the current
answer to this is to spawn a worker process and full blown socket
communications. Instead you could just dispatch "whateverMessage" to stack
"mystack" in thread.
No clue if there is anything useful here, its not very well thought out
yet.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
