[boost] Re: Future of threads (III)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 21:30:08

"scott" <scottw_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Boost.org
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Hurd, Matthew
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:31 PM
>
> Thanks for the numbers!
>
> Excellent stuff. would like to add the note that in an "ideal"
> deployment of the ActiveObject pattern, it brings zero overhead.
> Thats a wee bit sensational to make the point. but the overheads
> incurred with mechansims such as inter-thread messaging were
> there anyway. so yes copying, queueing, dequeueing and signaling
> a thread all consume cycles. but the application would have had
> to do something similar. ActiveObject is just a formalization
> and acknowledgement of it.

Hmm, thank goodness that emacs/gnus has a "Capitalize" key command
for messages like this one.  Sadly, it didn't fix everything ;-)

Are ActiveObjects like all objects were in Simula: each running in its
own thread, with fully asynchronous inter-object communications?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com