Re: [boost] Re: Threads: what I wrote...

From: Dietmar Kuehl (dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-09 10:54:49

Hi,
--- Kevlin Henney <kevlin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[lots on a generic approach]

This is basically what I was looking for all the time. The only reason
to write up this thin wrapper to pthreads was to show that pthreads do
no impose any restriction on whatever interface we choose with respect
to thread creation. It is to be considered a specific implementation of
a general concept, *not* as THE thread class: I completely agree with
Kevlin that there should neither be *a* mutex class nor *a* thread
class! The should be requirements for mutexes, threads, condition
variables, etc. which are then implemented by several different classes
realizing the same concept in different ways.

Actually, this is the whole point I keep insisting on the use idioms
used for concurrent programming: Only from the use we can tell whether
our requirements are sufficient - or already extended.

> I'm happy to work out a strawman doc based on this idea and building
> on Dietmar's definition's doc, if anyone's interested.

I would greately appreciate if I wouldn't be required to write 
everything :-) However, I can offer support on this, be it in form of
ideas with respect to requirements, reviews, htmlization of text, etc.

=====
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]>
<http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/