Boost logo

Boost :

From: Milutin Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-21 14:01:33

----- Original Message -----
> I believe the correct approach is to identify patterns of safe
> usage and create facilities that enforce those patterns -- at
> compile time if possible, at run time if not. I have been pushing
> the "monitor" pattern in my examples. If that pattern is not
> adequate for certain applications the best alternative is not to
> revert to primitives, but to provide the new pattern(s) as a safe
> facility.

I must have missed out your original idea, because this is the first time I
hear about your idea. But it sounds interesting. While the primitives do
have failings, some major ones as well, I have not seen a better way yet to
solve the synchronisation problem. But I would be very interested in finding
out a better way.

Can you elaborate a little what kind of patterns are you thinking of, and at
what level can they be applied.

Are thinking of a pattern appliad in method scope and simply combining
couple of primitives into a more complex structure to solve usual tasks, and
provide exception safety in the same time? Or are you thinking of enforcing
a synchronisation pattern on object or even module level?


Miki Jovanovic.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at