But I believe I am doing exactly that.
Imagine, for a moment the following scenario. I pinched your code above, which makes a simple way to control things. Other things - a black box. So I can send commands to your threaded example above (or something similar to it), like this:
etc.http://localhost:7070/startjobs http://localhost:7070/canceljobs
Now, in my application, the black box controlled by your threaded server example, are jobs started and canceled (worker threads managed by Thread::Pool::Simple). They are different threads than the threads that are implementing the IO::Socket::INET -based command server. (Different in that they are doing different things; pooled worker threads, versus the threads used in the IO::Socket::INET command server itself. Ultimately they are all threads.)
Hmmm, I wonder if that is more clear than before?
In reply to Re^6: A suicidal parent OR death of a forking server (Use threads)
by observer111
in thread A suicidal parent OR death of a forking server
by MonkeyMonk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |