-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
How can May be used for shared-nothing architecture? #107
Comments
stackful coroutines are independent to some extend, in theory they can be executed everywhere. The atomics and locks are only tools that designed for state sharing and it totally depends on how custom program coroutines. I don't have too much knowledge about shared-nothing architecture. and don't fully understand the real requirements. |
I would like to have some kind of LocalExecuter that has no requirements for either Send or Sync and that performs tasks strictly sequentially. Conditionally, within the framework of one such executor, I could create 10 tasks that generate other tasks, but all these tasks will be performed within the same thread and sequentially. This allows us to get rid of locks and atomics, since we do not have competition for resources. If this functionality already exists, I'd like to know about it. If such a thing exists, I am ready to write an example for documentation myself. |
oh, currently there is no mechanism for coroutine thread affinity. but when |
I would like to have an example in the documentation for this task. I looked at the source code and I had some doubts about the possibility of building a shared-nothing architecture. On the one hand, there is CoroutineLocal and the ability to create multiple Schedulers. But on the other hand, almost everywhere there is a requirement for Send and almost everywhere there are, if not locks, then atomics. If I'm wrong and May allows you to build shared-nothing architectures, let me know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: