home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!newstand.syr.EDU!bumesh
- From: bumesh@cat.syr.EDU
- Subject: Re: active objects (was: rethinking the Object Paradigm)
- Message-ID: <BUMESH.93Jan21134932@puma.cat.syr.EDU>
- In-reply-to: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:19:36 GMT
- Organization: Syracuse University
- References: <90587@bcsaic.boeing.com> <170@eiffel.eiffel.com>
- <1993Jan16.144040.12684@daimi.aau.dk> <172@eiffel.eiffel.com>
- <1993Jan20.171936.1301@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:01:08 EST
- Lines: 32
-
- >>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:19:36 GMT, cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) said:
-
- Ciaran> I had used the term "active object" to refer to languages such as POOL
- Ciaran> (Pierre America) or Eiffel || (Denis Caromel) in which an object has a
- Ciaran> single thread. This thread is used to both (i) schedule the order in
- Ciaran> which messages/invocations where to be serviced, and (ii) service them
- Ciaran> itself. Since there is just a single thread inside the object, all
- Ciaran> operations execute in mutual exclusion. Actually, now that I think of
- Ciaran> it, I think I used the term "single-threaded, active objects" to refer
- Ciaran> to such languages.
-
- I don't see how threads really make any difference. What we really
- should be concerned about is the mapping of activity to CPUs. Given a
- single CPU machine it does not make any sense to have an object which
- can have multiple threads at all. You could easily have a model in
- which we have multiple threads per object but this does not result in
- tru concurrency.
-
- Ciaran> ..... (stuff deleted)
- Ciaran> Does anybody have a definitive definition of what "active" means?
- Ciaran> Failing that, what are the different definitions which the other
- Ciaran> participants are using?
-
- Active should essentially mean the ability to perform computation.
-
- Ciaran> Ciaran.
-
- -umesh
- --
-
-
- -umesh
-