At 02:39 AM 5/11/01 -0400, Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:

>
>Can you explain that phrase in more detail, please? I'm not sure I
>understand how this piece of code works. Does SS still suffer from the
>limitations of the classic's event manager, for example?
>

The original implementation of the event manager (like the lock
manager) was based on shared memory guarded by semaphores in which
all "pointers" had to be relative and relocated on reference.

Since the super server runs in a single process, there is no
need for the share memory and relative pointers. I haven't
looked to see if there is separate implementation for super-server,
but I would be very surprised to find on. This is probably
another of the many instances of the super-server paying a
complexity and performance tax for sharing a code base with
classic (recognize a familiar theme here?).

The super server still needs synchronization primitives to control
thread access to shared data structure, but the thread services
are a great deal cheaper than SysV semaphores.

Jim Starkey