Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Upcoming time boundary events
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <101k1kn$96v$2@reader1.panix.com>
References: <100fp4v$1nmtf$1@dont-email.me> <101j008$2ob01$1@dont-email.me> <101j6mp$2vt8r$1@dont-email.me> <mn.12937e96a0bc3b12.104627@invalid.skynet.be>
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="9439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2056
Lines: 31

In article <mn.12937e96a0bc3b12.104627@invalid.skynet.be>,
Marc Van Dyck  <marc.gr.vandyck@invalid.skynet.be> wrote:
>on 02/06/2025, Lawrence D'Oliveiro supposed :
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 21:49:59 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/30/2025 6:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The irony of it, that the DEC concept requires creating a separate
>>>> server process for every client connection,
>>> 
>>> It doesn't.
>>> 
>>> Processes are re-used for task to task servers.
>>
>> Hmm. Presumably the process is kept around for a limited time before being 
>> shut down.
>>
>> What about multiple concurrent connections? You can’t avoid creating extra 
>> processes in that situation.

Responding generally, not specifically to Marc, but since I've
plonked the troll, I don't see his responses (I highly suggest
others do the same).

But this assertion in particular is silly and deserves a
rebuttal for the benefit of others.

I suppose the troll has never heard of event-driven programming,
or asynchronous IO, or, for that matter, threads.  Any of these
allow multiple connections to be served by a single process.

	- Dan C.