Talk:Thread pool

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Where is the actual pattern?

This may be lack of my english skill but in all but 2 of the (excellent, please keep them) external links this is referenced as "threadpool", not "threadpool pattern". Suggest: Move to threadpool :Leuk he 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "pattern" part is an error. Presumably the initial poster thought it was a pattern, rather than a software entity. This should be under "thread pool" and the word "pattern" should be dropped entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.133.215 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of bias to the codeproject with the external links -- 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.110.112 (talk)

Just reading this page, it seems like a lot of the arguments are kind of vague to the point of potential inaccuracy. I don't have any sources handy to fix it, and could well be wrong, but it seems like the examples don't make a lot of sense. It also seems mention should be given to just how expensive starting a thread is, it's pretty cheap as far as these things go. My impression was that a thread pool was used when you had a large number of tiny tasks such that the thread overhead cost starts to matter. 131.215.176.113 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

rename to thread pool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.47.142 (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> Creating and destroying a thread and its associated resources is an expensive process in terms of time.

Needs a citation. "Threads" are usually considered lightweight and cheap to create/destroy.

--89.103.7.232 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and validity of the article[edit]

This article has ZERO cited sources (with a box from 2009!) and as can be seen on the talk page, even the content is questionable. I would suggest an essentially complete rewrite starting with good sources from whence relevant parts are cited into the article, with complete refs. Basically this would allow scrapping all of the current article piece by piece. 91.154.87.201 (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]