Thread Synchronization (Was Re: Sockets vs. net connection)

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-04 09:38:29

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Jesse Jones <jesjones_at_h...> wrote:
> >You comments about needing thread safety brings up a topic for 
> >discussion, however.  Early in the development we talked about 
there 
> >being a need for synchronization primitives even before we include 
> >portable thread support.  We're basically close enough now to 
focus 
> >on porting such primitives to various platforms and submitting an 
> >initial version of the library to Boost.  My focus had moved on to 
> >TLS and thread support rather than on finishing the 
synchronization 
> >primitives, but maybe we should consider doing just this.  Any 
> >thoughts from others on this?
> 
> I think this is the way to go. It'll be easier to discuss just 
> synchronization primitives instead of synchronization and threads 
and it 
> will probably provide a faster path to portably making libraries 
thread 
> safe which I think is at least as important as portable threads.

I'd say more important.  Beman and others have raised the question 
about whether or not they should be seperate libraries, however.  
From a technical stand point I don't think they should be, but if it 
makes it easier on the Boost submission process I should consider 
this.  I'd appreciate detailed pros and cons to the two sides of this 
issue so that we can make a proper decision here.

Bill Kempf