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

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-08-09 19:51:42

William Kempf writes:
 > interface are specified.  The "mutex" may not be a template, but the 
 > mutex concept is applicable to varying concrete types that may be 
 > used in templates.  Do I have this right?

Yes, that is right.

 > The documents look nice, and I like the approach taken for the 
 > try_lock.  I'm still curious if a timed_lock should be considered.  
 > The benefit of a timed_lock over a try_lock is that the CPU 
 > utilization can be vastly reduced for some constructs on some 
 > platforms.  Yes, that's starting to get specific to the 
 > implementation, which I don't want to do, but it still seems a valid 
 > question.

Yes, I think a timed lock deserves a place of its own. I'm not
sure whether it should just be added to the Mutex concept, or
do something like TimedMutex which is a Mutex with a timed lock.

 > The only comment I'd make on the docs as written at this time is that 
 > the destructors may need a precondition.  It's possilbe (though 
 > probably not desirable) to create the lock on the heap and pass it to 
 > another thread which deletes it.  This means a thread is attempting 
 > to remove a lock that it doesn't own, which probably should be an 
 > error?

So what exactly should the precondition be? (sorry for being dense)

Cheers,

Jeremy