Re: multithreaded callbacks (was Re: [AD] de fourium pointium ohium)

["Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> It seems we can't decide.

We didn't really try, did we ?

> Most user callbacks won't be affected greatly by running in parallel
> threads, so for now, and maybe for ever, I think we should just
> acknowledge the problem (i.e. state in docs) and tell users to find their
> own synchronisation devices.

I agree with you when you're saying that this problem doesn't have a big
impact on most user programs so, unless someone quickly comes up with a very
brillant idea, I think we shouldn't rush ourselves into a decision before
the 4.0.

However, we have made some progress: option (0) seems now to be irrealistic
so basically we end up with (1a) (total control in the hands of the user)
and (1b) (no control or a shared control).

George, I don't really understand your prejudice against (1a): I wouldn't
call 4 little functions yet another thread API. Allegro provides (actually
several ports) a somewhat twisted threading model through timers, I don't
see why we shoudn't make it as safe as possible. If you want to see a true
new thread API, take a look at SDL. However, I'm not sure this solution fits
very well into Allegro's philosophy of ease-of-use.

-Eric