Re: generalising oxenstored for unix nodes too

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 Feb 2012, at 17:37, Thomas Gazagnaire wrote:

>> Ok, just going with making it Lwt+functor for now then, as is
>> the quickest. I had a vague idea that we might be able to hang
>> arbitrary continuations as the value for an entry, rather than just
>> strings, so they could be woken up by the scheduler.
>> However, thats step 2 :)  Just having it working in a stub domain
>> for now would be most useful.
> 
> You don't need lwt to make it work as stub donain, as the scheduler is 
> hand-made and do not use threads. But indeed, that would be a nice 
> improvement (but do you really need that?)
> 

It's hard to compose two blocking events without it. So strictly
speaking you could do a single oxenstored without Lwt, but even a
blocking console ring would introduce problems then.

I suspect in production that an oxenstored will also need a management
netfront or a logging ring of some kind, and so Lwt will be needed for
that.

-anil