I personally would not want to see the classic version dropped until
supersever supports threads that work across processors (and by
extension accross machines in beowolf type constructs).

best regards

Dalton

Jim Starkey wrote:

>
> At 12:44 PM 5/28/00 +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> >
> >All this applies to superserver, of course. Classic should just be taken
> >into the woods and shot.
> >
>
> This is the single most difficult and important question facing future
> development. Among the issues:
>
> 1. SuperServer only works on threaded platforms.
> 2. Security is hopeless in Classic
> 3. The conditionalization of the code makes ongoing maintenance
> of two branches highly problematic.
> 4. Support both on the same machine borders on impossible
> 5. Given an abstract workload, neither is a clear winner.
> Given a specific workload, one will generally outshine
> the other.
> 6. Asking the using at installation time which to install
> time is problematic -- how could a new use possible make
> an intelligent decision.
>
> An argument can me made -- but I haven't convinced Charlie -- that
> removing Classic will speed up SuperServer (algorithms are now chosen
> that work well in both), and that speeding up SuperService is necessary
> to kill off Classic. Chicken, egg.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jim Starkey
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
> Remember the good 'ol days
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/4/_/830676/_/959696797/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com