Hmm I see. That could be a bit of a problem for my application given that aolserver is highly threaded. I'd have to make a pool of interpreters and supervise access to them to ensure only one thread is using each interpreter at once... I'm also starting to look at the work going into the byte compilers - if I could have a pool of compilers, cache the bytecode and then only fire up a vm for each request that might be ok. Any timeline for thread safety?
on 2006-05-22 11:59
on 2006-05-23 04:09
On May 22, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Mark Aufflick wrote: > Hmm I see. That could be a bit of a problem for my application given > that aolserver is highly threaded. I'd have to make a pool of > interpreters and supervise access to them to ensure only one thread is > using each interpreter at once... > Making a pool of interpreters could have it's own problems. AFAIK, Ruby doesn't support multiple interpreters in the same process.
on 2006-05-23 05:53
Yes, they would have to be in seperate processes, which then loses the benefits of aolservers fantastic inter-thread communication. Maybe I should just help out with one of the VM projects and make sure that they are thread safe. The interpreter at least - the compiler being thread safe is not as important.
on 2006-05-24 02:20
On May 22, 2006, at 9:52 PM, Mark Aufflick wrote: > I'm pretty sure JRuby is thread safe. Can aolserver talk to Java? It could be a sort of stop-gap solution.
on 2006-05-24 06:28
Very interesting idea - is JRuby 100% compatible/compliant with regular ruby?