[boost] Re: Re: [Formal review] Singleton library

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 17:29:11

Jason Hise wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>
>> Stefan Strasser wrote:

>>>  - is not MT safe

>> I agree that MT support is crucial, and that shared library support
>> is very important, if i is possible. Rather than reject the library
>> because these problems haven't been addressed, let's try to address
>> them during the review.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
> I don't think its fair to say that it is not MT safe... the MT aspects
> just have not yet been extensively tested.

Okay, I haven't looked at it yet. I was basing my statement on the review
announcement which says that thread safety is not yet implemented.

> There is a lock policy in
> place, which is intended to lock the singleton in the lock's
> constructor, and release the lock in the lock's destructor.  A lock is
> used during creation, destruction, and access of any of the
> singleton's members via a proxy pointer.  The only thing missing is a
> lock class that actually performs the locking, and I am under the impression
that
> Boost.Threads probably provides something matching this description.

It only takes a few minutes to figure out how to use Boost.Threads. I suggest
you implement and test a lock policy using Boost.Threads and make it available
to reviewers.

> -Jason

Jonathan