Message-ID:	<333361D8.3B37@post.comstar.ru>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:36:40 -0800
From:	Dim Zegebart <zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru>
Reply-To:	zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru
Organization:	zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Paul Peavyhouse <pv AT cs DOT montana DOT edu>
CC:	DJGPP Mail List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Question about future of Allegro.
References:	<3329E6C5 DOT 531E AT post DOT comstar DOT ru> <332C774C DOT 3E2C AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz> <5gs5bt$etj AT netra DOT montana DOT edu>

Paul Peavyhouse wrote:
> 
>         Would this not be, generally, the same thing as multi-threading using
> priorities?  While there are thread libraries for DJGPP out there (I haven't
> played with threads in DJGPP yet) I think it might behoove Allegro to add
> this feature.  Playing with threads in Java, I like the simple approach to
> them (although setting priorities does not work under Win95 :< ).  There are
> only a handful of routines needed to implement a fully threadable class; but
> then the problem of synchronizing variables comes into play.  Dunno how this
> is managed in C/C++, but the implementation in Java is fairly complex.
>         Has anyone played with any threading libraries for DJGPP?  Are they
> pretty good, or can it be implemented better?

Actualy, I'm at the very end of my messaging kernel for Allegro.
I think it's not a real multy threading (like paraller tasks in UNIX),
but
it has very helpfull features (I hope so ;) ).
Anyway, then I'm finishing ( next week probably) I announce my work in
our list.

-- 
Regards,
Dim Zegebart,
Moscow Russia.

- Raw text -