Re: [PATCHES] win32 signals, part 4

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ok, here we go again.
>
> Taking into account Claudios comments on the previous patch, as well as
> some more fooling around here of my own, here's a fourth (and final?)
> one.
>
> If there are no further comments from Claudio or anyone else, I feel
> this is now ready to be applied.
>
> Differences from last version:
> 1) Per Claudios suggestion, create a "babysitter thread" for each
> process that waits on the process and signals ourselves. This reduces
> the amount of code (=good) and most importantly removes all the
> synchronisation issues (=even better). The only thing left to sync is
> the signal delivery, and that has alreay been taken care of in previous
> patches.

IIRC a separate "babysitter thread" just to handle message passing is
exactly what Katie Ward did for UltraSQL ... the Win32 port done at
NuSphere. Glad to see she was right about that.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #