David Bovill wrote:
> On 5 April 2015 at 05:01, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> David Bovill wrote:
>> > I am not quite sure what not being forkable is here - can you
>> > explain.
>>
>> Not as well as Andre:
>>
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2009-January/119437.html>
> Ok - so the key sentance there is - "We can't fork in revolution".
> So what does that mean? What is so special about Livecode that
> it can't do this?
> It's not multi-threading - it's something.... ?
>
> My thinking is that what we need is to be able to have some existing
> monitoring service keep a pool of LiveNode servers up and running -
> in a way in which you can configure the number of servers you need.
> Then you need a Node load balancing server / broker thing passing off
> messages asynchronously to a LiveNode server and immediately
> returning control to the user. only when all the LiveNode servers
> were used up - would a cue kick into action?
>
> This is all standard server / inter-application messaging stuff no?
> What prevents us doing that in Livecode?
As you read in Andre's post I linked to, that's more or less what he
proposes as an alternative to FastCGI.
If one is willing to put the time into assembling such a
multi-processing pool, the downsides relative to having forking appear
to be somewhat minor, not likely the sort of thing we'd run into south
of the C10k problem.
What have you run into in trying this that isn't working?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
____________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
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
