Re: [boost] Re: Comments on the thread library

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-02 16:41:37

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Matthew Austern wrote:
auster> 
auster> I don't agree with that last sentence.  If you need more than one class,
auster> it does not follow that the only solution is to have a generative system.
auster> Maybe the right solution is just to have more than one class.
auster> 

True, though whether we go with the generative or the many class approach
(or one on top of the other as others have suggested), we need to decide
which combinations of features we care about. The combinations should at
least include those that Jens listed in his previous email. Here's the
combinations I think are important.

non-recursive
-------------
basic_lock + try_lock, unchecked
basic_lock + try_lock, checked
basic_lock + try_lock + timed_lock, unchecked
basic_lock + try_lock + timed_lock, checked

recursive
---------
basic_lock + try_lock
basic_lock + try_lock + timed_lock

For the sake of simplicity, the above list ignores options for owner
priority, blocked priority, acquisition scheduling, and interprocess
mutexes... perhaps we can design things in such a way that we could add
options for these features at a later time.

Cheers,
Jeremy

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy Siek                        www: http://www.lsc.nd.edu/~jsiek/
 Ph.D. Candidate                  email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Univ. of Notre Dame         work phone: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------------------------