[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CAP: Bounded latency
George Babics wrote:
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.
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.
Are there potentially other problems for a single-threaded server?Not that I've noticed.
I'm not sure, but I believe making the bounded-latency features optional
would meet this requirement.
BTW, the CAP requirements draft does mention these
"Support functionality such that the client is not forced to remain
connected and waiting while a command is in progress. One possible
for the protocol to meet this requirement would be to allow the CU
abort a command that is taking too long."
|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. |