Proposal: Pooled memory management
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Tue Jan 21 01:53:07 EST 2003
Sven Panne <Sven_Panne at BetaResearch.de> wrote,
> Manuel wrote:
> > [...]
> > * I want to get v1.0 of the spec fixed. We are really only
> > in bug fix mode for quite a while and only the finalizer
> > problems held us back from finishing the spec.
> That's OK and I understand your motivation. Let's finish v1.0 first.
> > * I am sure there are plenty more useful FFI-related
> > libraries. However, the initial plan was to define basic
> > functionality on top of which more elaborate schemes can
> > be implemented. We need to draw the line somewhere. [...]
> But I strongly disagree here: The initial plan was to make a very small,
> but sufficient addition to the language (=> foreign import/export), which
> can be implemented easily on existing systems. In this respect, we have
> reached our goal quite elegantly IMHO.
> The related libraries are a totally different beast: Minimality is *not*
> a design goal here.
Ok. I agree that my statement here was too simplistic. Our
design principle with respect to the libraries is certainly
harder to state.
> In a nutshell: Let's include as many useful "patterns" in the next FFI spec
> versions as possible!
Nevertheless, I am pretty sure the idea wasn't to include as
many libraries as possible. We wanted a "reasonable" set to
cover the standard idioms.
The question is were to draw the line between the FFI spec
and a general set of generally available libraries. I
completely agree that we should have large a pool of
libraries running on all systems as possible. But some of
these can just be shared by being the same library rather
than multiple implementations of a standardised library.
Anyway, wrt FFI v1.0, we seem to agree that we leave Pools
out and first gather than experience with them.
More information about the FFI