Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Wisdom90 Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads Subject: Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:20:16 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:20:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="23237738623bf2ac373deed43b632389"; logging-data="30106"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7VdoAtBLYH+F2unze7b43" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ylM1YvVt1xWkugnMSmnkMsH8GmI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.programming.threads:5251 On 10/16/2019 2:14 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> I think i am also smart, so i have just quickly found a solution that >> is scalable and that is not your solution, so it needs my hashtable >> that scales very ... > > A scaling hashtable is easy. > >> ... scales very well and it needs my fully scalable FIFO queue that >> i have invented. > > That's also easy. > >> But i will not patent it, .. > > There's prior art for both. > As someone else told you: your ideas aren't new. > >> because i will let you patent yours since i have seen you speaking on >> the newsgroup of C++ about it. > > I'd have no problem if you show my idea as prior art. > So go on. > >> But my solution is not Lockfree, it uses locks and it is scalable. > > A locking LRU-list is never scalable. I correct: I said it uses locks and it is scalable, because locks are distributed like when you do lock striping. So there is no logical contradiction in my writing. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.