The Activity-Language can be defined by abstracting away
some crucial implementation functionality as part of an generic
»ExecutionCtx«, which in the end will be provided by the Scheduler.
But how actually?
We want to avoid unnecessary indirections, and ideally we also want
a concise formulation in-code. Here I'm exploring the idea to let the
scheduler itself provide the ExecutionCtx-operations as member functions,
employing some kind of "compile-time duck-typing"
This seems to work, but breaks the poor-man's preliminary "Concept" check...
Notably I wanted an entirely static and direct binding
to the internals of the Scheduler, which can be completely inlined.
The chosen solution also has the benefit of making the back-reference
to the Scheduler explicitly visible to the reader. This is relevant,
since the Config-Subobject is *copied* into each Worker instance.
The »Scheduler Service« will be assembled
from the components developed during the last months
- Layer-1
- Layer-2
- Activity-Language
- Block-Flow
- Work-Force
....still about to find out what kinds of Activities there are,
and what reasonably to implement on layer-2 vs. layer-1
It is clear that the worker will typically invoke a doWork()
operation on layer-2, which in turn will iterate layer-1.
Each worker pulls and performs internal managmenet tasks exclusively
until encountering the next real render task, at which point it will
drop an exclusion flag and then engage into performing the actual
extended work for rendering...
- define a simple record to represent the Activity
- define a handle with an ordering function
- low-level functions to...
+ accept such a handle
+ pick it from the entrace queue
+ pass it for priorisation into the PriQueue
+ dequeue the top priority element
