Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?

"Erwin" <e.smout_at_myonline.be> wrote in message news:1148460437.524529.21010_at_i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>> Yes. You.

> Your point escapes me.

Sorry about that. It happens.
I wanted to say you are the only one who can convince yourself if your suspicions are wrong.

>> I cannot see ...

> Maybe that's because you're not looking.

Yes.

>> ... how there can be concurrency bottle necks in an idea.

> Well, maybe because it happens to be an idea about an implementation
> technique/algorithm for the physical organisation of data storage.

As Bob said, after asking Fabian Pascal, it's not an idea about a physical organisation of data storage.

> And that therefore, that idea has to deal with the quite universally
> accepted requirement that it must be possible for different
> tasks/run-units/users/... to do their needed manipulations on the
> stored data "simultaneously" or "concurrently". And that if an idea
> does not deal very well with that quite universally accepted
> requirement, then it is likely to be a bad idea.

If you say so.

> But then again, these are all just a whole lot of maybees from a closed
> mind with an acute lack of reasoning ability, so I wouldn't bother too
> much if I were you.

If I were you, I'll stop saying things like those above. Wait! Wrong. That I'll be doing if I were me, not you.

Please, don't take all this too personally. I have nothing against you or against your idea. Received on Wed May 24 2006 - 11:09:07 CEST