Re: Threads

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-22 12:26:17

--- In boost_at_[hidden], jsiek_at_l... wrote:
> 
> This brings up an issue with our Mutex design... currently the 
scoped
> lock object is the only way to access the lock/unlock functionality.
> This wrapper technique needs access to lock/unlock.  Perhaps we 
should
> make lock/unlock a protected member. This wrapper could then gain
> access through subclassing. This essentially makes lock/unlock a 
part
> of the "public" interface, though it gives a warning to users.
> 
> (note that if we have a lock() function we have to change the name 
of
> the lock type to something else, or vice versa)

I think you're jumping to conclusions.  There may be a way to code 
the lock_pointer using the MutexLock (I'd bet there is, I just 
haven't worked on it yet).  Even if not, all that's really needed is 
to make the lock_pointer a friend of the Mutex, the same as is done 
for the MutexLock.  I see no reason to expose the lock/unlock methods 
of the mutex on the public interface.