On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:43:29PM +0400, Oleg Broytmann wrote:
-> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:40:57PM -0400, Tom Jenkins wrote:
-> > Graham Fawcett wrote:
-> > |
-> > |    * it's cross-platform: for example, Win32 can't fork. This may not
-> > |      be a requirement for your app, of course.
-> > |    * it's distributable. Once you're message-passing between
-> > |      independent processes, it's a small jump to passing those messages
-> > |      across a network. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those... ;-)
-> > |    * improves availablity and reuse: it's easy to add other types of
-> > |      clients which can request the same type of task. You're building
-> > |      components and wiring them together, instead of building
-> > |      monolithic apps.
-> > |    * it really forces a clean separation between the client and the
-> > |      business process. Maybe it's just me, but I like to have buffers
-> > |      like that, to prevent me from creating dependencies where they
-> > |      don't belong.
-> > |
-> >
-> > these arguments above make alot of sense and
-> > are very compelling to me.
->
->    Then I recommend you to find documentation why Samba uses forking,
-> not threading model. Andrew Tridgell wrote much more arguments on
-> this...

I'm not sure I understand: isn't forking vs threading a different
issue than the one being discussed?

Nonetheless if someone finds the discussion I'd be interested in reading
it.  Andrew Tridgell sends too much e-mail for me to find it with a
simple Google use ;).

--titus