[Rails] Re: Re: Re: Database Concurrency Without a Web Server?

snacktime
Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:06:11 -0000

On 7/13/06, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com>
wrote:
> snacktime wrote:
> > On 7/13/06, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > someone is using it for network connections which are already
> >> > nonblocking, but also needs database or file access.  They
can use
> >> > threads for the stuff that isn''t yet nonblocking.
> >> >
> >> > Good to see an event framework started for ruby, it
definitely needed
> >> > one.
> >>
> >> EventMachine is definitely intended to meet the needs addressed by
> >> Twisted. What other features do you think are high on the list?
Also,
> >> can you think of any applications that would be easier to write
with
> >> such a Ruby framework?
> >
> > Maybe something like twisted has where you can specify two methods to
> > a callback, one for success and one if there is an error so you can
> > catch it.
>
> I''ve thought a lot about that, and I''m not convinced
it''s necessary
> because Ruby makes certain things easier than Python. What Twisted does
> when it creates a deferred is give you back an object that you add your
> own callbacks and errbacks to, in a chain. And you can pass it around to
> other code that will add its own callbacks and errbacks. But with Ruby,
> all the processing is there in the closure. EventMachine#defer as
> currently implemented doesn''t return anything. It simply remembers
the
> callback block as the operation makes its way through the thread pool.
> Whatever result was generated from the processing block gets passed to
> the (single) callback, which can make its own decisions about whether an
> error occurred or not.
>
> I may be missing something, so can you think of a case where it actually
> makes more sense to supply separate callbacks and errbacks?


Ok I should probably take some time to use it before making
suggestions:)  I just looked over the code and at the short examples.