Outcurses

Line 265:

For Outcurses and its general-purpose panelreels, we cannot assume deep application assistance. We cannot assume understanding of application internals. We cannot assume that it is possible to cache structure beyond the circular list of top-level objects corresponding to tablets, and we cannot even assume this last to be truly reflected in the application, which might very well not have a concept of ordering among the tablets. Furthermore, it would be a fine thing indeed to wholly decouple screen updates from any locked core code.

u

Accomplishing this last eliminates almost all of our problems, while introducing a few new ones. Decoupling screen updates from core updates means that UI code cannot be called from any application context holding core locks. This immediately suggests a producer/consumer model where updates are written to a shared, synchronized buffer. In a model where data is copied to the UI state (and thus it needn't lock against the core), these updates might take the form of piecemeal instructions ("iface 2 has added a subelement. iface 3 has received the following packet." etc.), and it would be necessary to process the updates in-order and cumulatively, though actual screen redrawing could be postponed to the end of a batch of updates. Alternatively, the entirety of state could be copied for each update, eliminating complexity in both the UI and core for a price paid in memory and time. Finally, nothing could be published save "iface 2 has changed", requiring a locked call into the core to get the data (and reference counters for data which might be destroyed). Comparing these strategies, we see:

Outcurses: Difference between revisions

Dank (talk | contribs)

@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 For Outcurses and its general-purpose panelreels, we cannot assume deep application assistance. We cannot assume understanding of application internals. We cannot assume that it is possible to cache structure beyond the circular list of top-level objects corresponding to tablets, and we cannot even assume this last to be truly reflected in the application, which might very well not have a concept of ordering among the tablets. Furthermore, it would be a fine thing indeed to wholly decouple screen updates from any locked core code.
-u
 Accomplishing this last eliminates almost all of our problems, while introducing a few new ones. Decoupling screen updates from core updates means that UI code cannot be called from any application context holding core locks. This immediately suggests a producer/consumer model where updates are written to a shared, synchronized buffer. In a model where data is copied to the UI state (and thus it needn't lock against the core), these updates might take the form of piecemeal instructions ("iface 2 has added a subelement. iface 3 has received the following packet." etc.), and it would be necessary to process the updates in-order and cumulatively, though actual screen redrawing could be postponed to the end of a batch of updates. Alternatively, the entirety of state could be copied for each update, eliminating complexity in both the UI and core for a price paid in memory and time. Finally, nothing could be published save "iface 2 has changed", requiring a locked call into the core to get the data (and reference counters for data which might be destroyed). Comparing these strategies, we see: