[boost] Re: RFC: Multithreading design constraints

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-06 07:03:19

Miki,

>Otherwise, I am casting a strong vote for a simple scope for normal 
usage. Unless one needs very specialised/optimised synchronisation, 
the only thing we should have to do a put a single line at the 
beginning of our code. Why should I put an acquire(), then if..else, 
and finally throw, if all I need is a simple lock?
<

Ok, I would go with that as well, I think that Steve has convinced me that
the if(guard) is not required, provided the constructor is external.  BTW
my model here was the iostreams sentry class (and its usage), rename
"guard" "sentry" if you prefer.

>I think a define is a better way to go as well. Generally, I think 
that directing implementation details from template parameters is a 
bad idea. Sure it is powerful, but it will soon bloat the template to 
unusability. Multithreading is not the only implementation issue. 
People started putting memory allocators there, then someone will 
think of another convinience... All of a sudden a simple shared_ptr 
will have 10 parameters, where it was supposed to be *simple*.
<

I could live with that also, provided that there exists an efficient
implementation for all the primitives we define.

- John