Re: thread-private working directory

[Dave Butenhof <yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx>]

Harti Brandt wrote:

> I have to add only one remark: having optional features in a standard is
> ok. It makes sense, although, while designing the optional feature to
> think about the implications on existing or forthcoming applications. If
> the amount of work needed for implementing the option outweights the
> benefit (either because of complexity or because there are other ways to
> do almost the same), then putting the option into the standard is bad. It
> is bad (and not neutral), because it makes the standard 'thicker' and
> raises the energy needed by 'outside' people to understand/implement it.
>  
Ah, but this overlooks the POLITICAL aspect of developing standards. 
While some of the options really stem from serious and reasonably 
objective technical concerns (like prioritized I/O, which can obsolete 
not merely kernel software but also intelligent I/O hardware and can be 
extraordinarily difficult to implement throughout a distributed I/O 
system), others are there simply because without the option some 
significant group would have voted "NO" and there might have been no 
standard at all.

--
/--------------------[ yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx ]--------------------\
| Hewlett-Packard Company       Tru64 UNIX & VMS Thread Architect |
|     My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/     |
\----[ http://homepage.mac.com/dbutenhof/Threads/Threads.html ]---/