Message-ID: <333361D8.3B37@post.comstar.ru> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:36:40 -0800 From: Dim Zegebart Reply-To: zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru Organization: zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Peavyhouse CC: DJGPP Mail List 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.