Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of alexei.fedotov@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=DJ/awhgN2sqgVQcwWThQnMXYOamNWdguzNbKKxDO62oaqteOqXfRkedkR/xuWNy/A/t3a3Fpca3ssmxSHWg19AAe1uxiiQza/eeQ4AsRpOFvlaGqipQODMMTJW/h/iYXuFubyUSpbRaHRkyv9HLudxqK5LMUadt5zakCblkhsKU=
Message-ID: <c30d70960710120657n7c69c7b7t608e846f10d79ad4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:57:42 +0400
From: "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib][nio] epoll()-based Selector
In-Reply-To: <4bebff790710120623x1eed5e10j90b699a923232ec5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4bebff790710010849q3116964br7d85dc5a5b5f20a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f982cec50710080233w2da82440p6b4197e56e9a5b37@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790710080246qe981904md6015aa90950fb7a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <470DD612.8030308@gmail.com>
	 <2c9597b90710110503h223eb1e1h600ff71e8d80fe41@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790710120419n70710a30hf3e0a1f475692d26@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960710120436v4512d777q95817087e69bee20@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790710120447y5ff74dd6u27a449d2358fc09e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2c9597b90710120558m275a0b72l10baccf9112d8802@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790710120623x1eed5e10j90b699a923232ec5@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

> If we will implement automatic switching to the epoll, then
we implement runtime check and fail gently.

BTW, does one consider forgetting of 2.4 kernels? This would be the
most effective solution measured in lines of code. :-)

Thanks.

On 10/12/07, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexei,
>
> That's simple - if the have no _runtime_ kernel check and enable
> EpollSelectionProvider then we will fail with "unresolved symbol:
> epoll_*". More cleaner way will be to provide some runtime  check and
> fail with some clean message describing lack of epoll facility in the
> running kernel.
>
> AFAIU, both ways should not confuse the user since epoll is turned on
> manually. If we will implement automatic switching to the epoll, then
> we implement runtime check and fail gently.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
> On 10/12/07, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another question is what we should do if somebody tries to use our
> > regular snapshot (that was built on 2.6+ kernel) on the machine with
> > older kernel.
>


-- 
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel