Re: [boost] [thread] A simply static initializeable mutex and a named one

From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-30 06:22:39

Anthony Williams wrote:
> Windows named mutexes do give you exactly this functionality, though as they
> are kernel objects you don't get the "fast path" options of a roll-your-own
> mutex.
> 
> If the name for your mutex includes the process ID and &afoo, then Windows
> will give you a distinct mutex for each distinct foo object. You need the
> process ID, so you don't get a clash with mutexes in other processes, since
> named mutexes are system-global.

Yes, of course. I already mentioned that the idea might sound all to 
trivial. A similar mutex also exists e.g. on linux.

You are pointing at the similarities.

But I want to show the differences. In my case I simply use the
standard" process-local mutex, but wrapping it into a "name-generator".

In this respect my "idea" is different from op-sys named mutices.
op-sys mutices are always system global aren't they? (Given the name is
unique.)

Consequently my approach gives you a fast-pathed mutex if you need it,
without loss of the "named" feature.

Roland