[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CAP: Bounded latency




George Babics wrote:


Another way to implement it would be for the thread to
check every X seconds or milliseconds if the latency
time has run out or not.

That won't work, though. If I have a single-threaded system, relying on blocking function calls (e.g., for database access), then I can't check the clock during those calls.

Are there potentially other problems for a single-threaded server?

Not that I've noticed.

BTW, the CAP requirements draft does mention these
features:

   "Support functionality such that the client is not forced to remain
   connected and waiting while a command is in progress. One possible
way
   for the protocol to meet this requirement would be to allow the CU
to
   abort a command that is taking too long."

I'm not sure, but I believe making the bounded-latency features optional would meet this requirement.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Never mind the GUIs--Unix won't be for the   |
|francis@xxxxxxxx|masses until we fix backspace & delete.      |
\==============================================================/