From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2023 13:10:21 +0000 Message-ID: <87h6qi8pxe.fsf@localhost> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <83pm57k01f.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ey8uv7.fsf@localhost> <83bkgqk28a.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt0a8rak.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16468"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel To: Lynn Winebarger Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 05 15:11:18 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qH2Ht-00046X-AV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 15:11:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qH2H9-0003Zc-IP; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 09:10:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qH2H7-0003ZG-4F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 09:10:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qH2H4-0005Cd-SS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 09:10:28 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D0B240027 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:10:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688562624; bh=srOhNIq9w9S+Ol/sadv086nEitDT6PgjYHnC2x1Q+PM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=mHlYzsRq7+ZVCblWpYvU9knT7W3dZ9PQtHtuPJafFomOHKlDn/68CSqhLwCRSBLdZ 1fL4AIBFFJT43yo8R6Q6do9GaOaXeXFIwS/LHYx//cpcCLgboEZcJISe8PgS6xysNf 1BIN0zam31omimBwP2TWDu6azy1G6LOOymuBh4Gof2fAm526VJnYQWe3EN8VDQjsUA iLncKkSz1Ot8K4jowQTQcn/Ehw2eNaNOz3IAbV5bdT/m5ie/l+fsR4DIsGKyoJbkIr uYXPgX2FOnmvuMtjrBxyidrUBZrW41uWojMzcaE5O86sUI5akzp1LtBhXCqGG762bd opYBoHidh46gg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Qx0Q75rWvz6twG; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:10:23 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307465 Archived-At: Lynn Winebarger writes: > The best idea I've had for a general solution would be to make "concurrent" > versions of the fundamental lisp objects that act like immutable git > repositories, with the traditional versions of the objects acting as > working copies but only recording changes. Then each checked out copy > could push charges back, and if the merge fails an exception would be > thrown in the thread of that working copy which the elisp code could decide > how to handle. That would work for inter-process shared memory or plain > in-process memory between threads. Then locks are only needed for updating > the main reference to the concurrent object. Honestly, it sounds overengineered. Even if not, it is probably easier to implement a more limited version first and only then think about fancier staff like you described (not that I understand your idea fully). -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at