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

From: Dietmar Kuehl (dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-09 10:58:51

Hi,
--- "Borgerding, Mark A." <MarkAB_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> My point is this:
>  Using an abstract base class as the mechanism for implementing
> threads is the most straightforward method.

If 'f()' is a function, I would consider this to be more natural:

  spawn_thread(f);

... and if 'f()' takes three arguments, I would still consider

  spawn_thread(f, 1, 2, 3);

(where the arguments can be of arbitrary types) to be more natural.
However, I would strongly prefer it if there would be one common method
to create a thread on which a platform independent library implements
all those nifty and fancy other tools! ... or, put differently, a naive
port of the Boost Threading library to some underlying threading
library should be a matter of implement a dozen pretty trivial classes
and/or functions. Built on top of this rock solid basis we can create
whatever our damag^H^H^H^H^H brains spin off.

Hm, maybe we would end up with two interfaces:
- A generic requirement oriented user interface to the Boost Threading
  Library.
- A base library to ease porting on which the BTL is implemented.

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

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