Re: Is there an easier way to cancel threads???

[Adrian Sietsma <adrian_groups@...>]

> > > I am sure you will be requoted many times. IMHO the way around the
> > > thread problem is have the OS handle the threading for you. IO completion
> > > ports and overlapped IO do this on Win32. For once MS almost got it right.
> > > There is, I believe, a few *nix implementations of IOCPs.
> > > Anyways, the IOCP model should not be tough to emulate on *nix and
> > > it solves a *lot* of thread/mutex nightmares (tremble/shake).
>
>
> [...]
>
> You can get the best of both worlds by providing a simple coroutine
> scheduler, and make versions of all the AIO primitives that block the
> calling coroutine, and schedule a waiting coroutine by dequeuing the
> IOCP.
It works beautifully ! The only catch is gethostbyname, for which there is 
no nonblocking support in windows. My solution is to have a background 
thread (pool) for nonblocking calls - only gethostbyname on winXP. This 
thread communicates with the main via iocp, so no mutexing is required, and 
all memory is handled by Lua.

Adrian