Re: Your advice about WorkerThreads vs UI Threads

From:

"Tom Serface" <tom.nospam@camaswood.com>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.mfc

Date:

Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:26:09 -0700

Message-ID:

<60FC9727-576E-4A9D-BC9A-2ECEDD5F3CA1@microsoft.com>

You are correct. The name for the UI thread is misleading. I'm not sure
it's a universal philosophy, but I NEVER have more than one thread doing
actual UI work (displaying UI objects for example). This has been and
interesting thread on threads.

Tom

"MrAsm" <mrasm@usa.com> wrote in message
news:o5v313197tlqthcntkaajq86fldkckngl7@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:41:17 -0700, "Tom Serface"

I think the opinions tend to be the same, and for example both Scott's
and Joe's opinions are well summarized here:

<cite>
For something that is simply a long computation, a worker thread is
fine. It starts, does its job, and returns.

For something that wants to act as a thread pool element, and you want
to be able to queue
up things for it, have it respond to asynchronous events, etc., a UI
thread would be the
best choice.
</cite>

I think that the choice of naming "UI thread" is misleading. I thought
about UI threads as threads with user-interface elements, and it is
not correct.

MrAsm