[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: [ANN] io-reactor 1.0.4

Tony Arcieri

8/20/2008 1:19:00 AM

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:37 PM, <ged@faeriemud.org> wrote:

>
> Version 1.0.4 of IO-Reactor has been released.
>
> IO-Reactor is a pure-Ruby implementation of an asynchronous multiplexed IO
> Reactor


Just curious, what motivated you to write this? I can't imagine it performs
very well (is it using IO.select?) and there are already two C-based Reactor
libraries available for Ruby that I know of: EventMachine and Rev.

EventMachine also has pure Ruby and JRuby versions available.

And as an aside: I'm the author of Rev.

--
Tony Arcieri
medioh.com
7 Answers

Michael Granger

8/20/2008 5:43:00 AM

0

Tony Arcieri wrote:

>> Version 1.0.4 of IO-Reactor has been released.
>>
>> IO-Reactor is a pure-Ruby implementation of an asynchronous
>> multiplexed IO Reactor
>
> Just curious, what motivated you to write this?

I needed a way to multiplex the IO from many sockets, and found the
Reactor pattern much more usable than doing the usual hoop-jumping
associated with using select().

> I can't imagine it performs very well (is it using IO.select?) [...]

If in your imagination IO.select never performs adequately to the task
at hand, then I guess it can't, as it does indeed use IO.select. I have
not found your imagined performance problems to be true in reality for
my applications, however.

> [...] and there are already two C-based Reactor libraries available
> for Ruby that I know of: EventMachine and Rev.

While there are *now* (at least) two C-based "Reactor" libraries, there
was nothing of the kind at least on the RAA when I wrote the first
version (back when it was Ruby-Poll).

I certainly had no intention of impugning your hard work (or Francis's)
by releasing a bugfix for a library I wrote that does a similar thing a
different way. I just have other code that depends on IO-Reactor, and
wanted to (belatedly) apply patches that other people were kind enough
to send me in case other people do too.

> EventMachine also has pure Ruby and JRuby versions available.

Good to know; I'll keep it in mind should I ever feel like IO-Reactor
isn't addressing my needs anymore.

> And as an aside: I'm the author of Rev.

Okay. Rev's API looks very clean and pleasantly Rubyish in its idiom. I
look forward to using it for something.

I was very interested in libevent when I first heard of it, but after
hearing about the struggles Zed Shaw had with his Ruby/Event library, I
guess I dismissed it as a possibility for doing event-based IO in a Ruby
program with multiple threads. I'll be interested to see how you have
solved that problem when I have time to study Rev's source a little more
and do some experimentation.

--
Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org>
Rubymage, Architect, Believer
The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.faeriemu...

Trans

8/20/2008 6:27:00 AM

0



On Aug 19, 9:18=A0pm, "Tony Arcieri" <t...@medioh.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:37 PM, <g...@faeriemud.org> wrote:
>
> > Version 1.0.4 of IO-Reactor has been released.
>
> > IO-Reactor is a pure-Ruby implementation of an asynchronous multiplexed=
IO
> > Reactor
>
> Just curious, what motivated you to write this? =A0I can't imagine it per=
forms
> very well (is it using IO.select?) and there are already two C-based Reac=
tor
> libraries available for Ruby that I know of: EventMachine and Rev.

Michael's lib has been around for much longer than these others. I
even distributed it with Facets for a while. I'm happy to see it has
it's own solid project now.

T.

Al in St. Lou

3/28/2010 7:28:00 PM

0

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:23:33 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
<J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote:

>>
>>>>
>>>> In the English derived world, universities are collections of
>>>> colleges, e.g., [...]. The noted University of Oxford in England
>>>> consists of over twenty units denoted as "college".
>>>>
>>> Note that that's one of the exceptions, not the rule. There are four
>>> major collegiate universities in England: Oxford, Cambridge, Durham,
>>> and London. Most of the rest aren't collegiate. As far as I am aware,
>>> in modern British usage, "college" is generally nowadays taken, at
>>> least by those people who are of an age to currently be "going to
>>> college", to be "sixth form college" rather than university.
>>>
>> I undestand the confusion about what it is that constitutes a college.
>> When I said something about going to college I was, of course, using a
>> Leftpondian usage.
>>
>It was less about that, and more about noting that England itself is not
>so much part of the "English derived world" any more when it comes to
>this. England used to be the way that you described, at the start of
>the 20th century, but largely isn't any longer. The later charters and
>all of the polytechnic conversions don't follow the pattern of the older
>institutions. Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Durham have colleges; but
>most of the newer universities don't. Not only are the newer
>universities, chartered in the 20th century, not organized on a
>collegiate system, but many of them don't even use "college" to describe
>a non-collegiate arrangement. Three examples, from many: The University
>of Reading ("It's not the University of 'Rithmetic.") has halls of
>residence, departments, and schools. Coventry University (ne?
>Lanchester Polytechnic) has halls of residence, faculties, and schools.
>The University of East Anglia has student residences and schools. None
>of them are collegiate, and none even describe themselves in terms of
>colleges nowadays. (Hence the reason that "college" has become more
>aligned with "sixth-form college".)

In this context, "school" is synonymous with "college," Shirley.

--
Al in St. Lou

Al in St. Lou

3/28/2010 7:32:00 PM

0

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:27:09 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
<J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote:

>>
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, in modern British usage, "college" is generally
>>> nowadays taken, at least by those people who are of an age to
>>> currently be "going to college", to be "sixth form college" rather
>>> than university.
>>>
>> If they are a year or two older "college" might mean a college (or
>> institute) of further education.
>>
>No, it usually doesn't nowadays. One "goes to school", then "goes to
>college", then "goes to university". Whilst the idea of universities
>being divided into colleges still lingers on in some places, including
>the redbricks as you note, but even then in a dwindling number of
>instances, popular usage really does appear to have changed. Check it
>out for yourself. Here are three quotations from British goverment
>publications to get you started:
>
>> Thousands of school and college pupils across England are to get a
>> helping hand from university students in exploring, selecting and
>> applying for university courses under a ?21million new initiative
>> announced today by John Denham.
>>
>> There are lots of opportunities for those
>> leaving school, college and university.
>>
>> Whether your child is going to school, college or university, help is
>> available with the costs of their education.
>>
>The idea of universities being collections of colleges is more and more
>confined to just Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and London; and to many
>people now "college" is something that one goes to before university,
>because most universities in England nowdays employ neither the
>terminology nor the concept for themselves.

Are you saying "college" refers to secondary education nowadays (in
the UK)?

--
Al in St. Lou

James Silverton

3/28/2010 8:02:00 PM

0

Al wrote on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:32:19 -0500:

>>>> As far as I am aware, in modern British usage, "college" is
>>>> generally nowadays taken, at least by those people who are
>>>> of an age to currently be "going to college", to be "sixth
>>>> form college" rather than university.
>>>>
>>> If they are a year or two older "college" might mean a
>>> college (or institute) of further education.
>>>
>> No, it usually doesn't nowadays. One "goes to school", then
>> "goes to college", then "goes to university". Whilst the
>> idea of universities being divided into colleges still
>> lingers on in some places, including the redbricks as you
>> note, but even then in a dwindling number of instances,
>> popular usage really does appear to have changed. Check it
>> out for yourself. Here are three quotations from British
>> goverment publications to get you started:
>>
>>> Thousands of school and college pupils across England are to
>>> get a helping hand from university students in exploring,
>>> selecting and applying for university courses under a
>>> ?21million new initiative announced today by John Denham.
>>>
>>> There are lots of opportunities for those
>>> leaving school, college and university.
>>>
>>> Whether your child is going to school, college or
>>> university, help is available with the costs of their
>>> education.
>>>
>> The idea of universities being collections of colleges is
>> more and more confined to just Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and
>> London; and to many people now "college" is something that
>> one goes to before university, because most universities in
>> England nowdays employ neither the terminology nor the
>> concept for themselves.

> Are you saying "college" refers to secondary education
> nowadays (in the UK)?

My old school, The University of Glasgow, has nine Faculties with both
Undergraduate and Graduate Schools. on three Campuses. The university
has about 100 academic faculties, departments, schools, divisions,
sections, institutes, centres, projects and units. There are about 1000
undergraduate degree combinations. I am not really certain what
present-day undergraduates say about "going to college" (in the US
sense) but I don't think "Youni" is used any more tho' I don't believe
it is as thoroughly dead as "Varsity", which was used some in the 1930s.

Large groupings of departments and faculties are called "Colleges" in
the Universities of Edinburgh and Birmingham.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard

3/30/2010 5:44:00 PM

0

>
>>>>
>>>> As far as I am aware, in modern British usage, "college" is
>>>> generally nowadays taken, at least by those people who are of an
>>>> age to currently be "going to college", to be "sixth form college"
>>>> rather than university.
>>>>
>>> If they are a year or two older "college" might mean a college (or
>>> institute) of further education.
>>>
>> No, it usually doesn't nowadays. One "goes to school", then "goes to
>> college", then "goes to university". Whilst the idea of universities
>> being divided into colleges still lingers on in some places,
>> including the redbricks as you note, but even then in a dwindling
>> number of instances, popular usage really does appear to have
>> changed. Check it out for yourself. Here are three quotations from
>> British goverment publications to get you started:
>>
>>> Thousands of school and college pupils across England are to get a
>>> helping hand from university students in exploring, selecting and
>>> applying for university courses under a ?21million new initiative
>>> announced today by John Denham.
>>>
>>> There are lots of opportunities for those leaving school, college
>>> and university.
>>>
>>> Whether your child is going to school, college or university, help
>>> is available with the costs of their education.
>>>
>> The idea of universities being collections of colleges is more and
>> more confined to just Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and London; and to
>> many people now "college" is something that one goes to before
>> university, because most universities in England nowdays employ
>> neither the terminology nor the concept for themselves.
>>
> Are you saying "college" refers to secondary education nowadays (in
> the UK)?
>
The U.K., no. England, yes, to a great extent. (Cue a long thread
trying to explain the difference between the two to Peter T. Daniels.)
M. Hatunen spoke of an "English derived world" where "universities are
collections of colleges". Ironically, England itself is no longer in
that world, and to many "college" is sixth-form, not university, education.

Here's yet another example: The Hampshire County Council's post-16
education and transport WWW site is called "going to college". Review
its map of further education WWW page, and see the four universities
listed as "university". Of the 22 "colleges" there, 19 are sixth-form
colleges, and the remainder are not universities either.

As I said, check it out for yourself. You'll find that "college" to mean
university is now infrequent, outside of the aforementioned four
institutions, and (because of the influence of the majority) is largely
not the case in either common usage or in current government literature
aimed at the general public.

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard

3/30/2010 6:11:00 PM

0

>
>>
>> It was less about that, and more about noting that England itself is
>> not so much part of the "English derived world" any more when it
>> comes to this. England used to be the way that you described, at the
>> start of the 20th century, but largely isn't any longer. The later
>> charters and all of the polytechnic conversions don't follow the
>> pattern of the older institutions. Oxford, Cambridge, London, and
>> Durham have colleges; but most of the newer universities don't. Not
>> only are the newer universities, chartered in the 20th century, not
>> organized on a collegiate system, but many of them don't even use
>> "college" to describe a non-collegiate arrangement. Three examples,
>> from many: The University of Reading ("It's not the University of
>> 'Rithmetic.") has halls of residence, departments, and schools.
>> Coventry University (ne? Lanchester Polytechnic) has halls of
>> residence, faculties, and schools. The University of East Anglia has
>> student residences and schools. None of them are collegiate, and none
>> even describe themselves in terms of colleges nowadays. (Hence the
>> reason that "college" has become more aligned with "sixth-form college".)
>>
> In this context, "school" is synonymous with "college," Shirley.
>
No (and I'm resisting your Airplane! feed line). They don't describe
what, in the collegiate universities, are actually colleges, and
"college" is rarely if ever used, either by the institutions themselves
or others, for them. And because they are in the numerical majority,
both in terms of the institutions themselves and in terms of the people
who pass through them, the non-collegiates, with their non-"college"
terminology, hold sway. "going to college", to the majority of people,
and certainly to most of the people who are actually doing it nowadays
(and their parents), is what one does before "going to university", and
after "going to school". Heaven forfend that one should make the faux
pas of telling a university student in England (outside of the four
collegiates) that xe is going to college, or even to school! One will
be firmly corrected. (-: