[PD] we want threads !!!!

[Miller Puckette]

Yes, I'm scared to death of threads.  The readsf~/writesf~ objects do
use them (there's no alternative) but my experience in general is that
it's very hard to maintain threaded code if you want a high level of 
reliability (which I do in Pd)... 

I'd be interested someday in trying to make a general framework for 
I/O operations (soundfiler, for example) using asynchronous reads and
writes, and perhaps the best way to do this would be using threads.  But
I wouldn't assume so.  As to graphics updates, I think they can be managed
much better than they are now by careful scheduling, without having to use
threads.  I dont' plan to mess with this in the upcoming version though,
since I've finally got it almost all working.

cheers
Miller

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Larry Troxler wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, ydegoyon at free.fr wrote:
> 
> > hi, all,
> >
> > annoyed by some recurrent issues in PD, i made the following
> > patches to PD's sources :
> >
> > d_soundfile.c : load the sounfile in a thread to avoid audio dropouts.
> > this patch concerns the "soundfiler" object.
> >
> > s_inter.c : send messages to the GUI using a message buffer
> > and a thread to avoid audio dropouts.
> >
> > this introduces a lot of threads and Miller
> > objected once using threads is dangerous.
> >
> > so, if you like danger, you might try these....
> > it's experimental still but with the help of some beta-testers,
> > it might get consistent soon.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > sevy/yves
> >
> >
> 
> Wow! I hope these get accepted - particularly if you indeed have fixed the
> GUI problem (it being not properly multithreaded, that is), this indeed
> something everyone has been looking forward to.
> 
> Did Miller really object to using threads, saying that they're dangerous?
> In what context?
> 
> Using threads *is* often quite tricky to get right, of course.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
>