From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-04 10:17:18
--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Milutin Jovanovic" <miki_at_o...> wrote:
> I am suffering extreme time shortage, so I have kept my mouth
closed for a
> very long time. However, at this stage I have to ask the following.
> the aim of the threading support we are planning? Is it:
> a) rudimentary support for the multi-threading promitives
> b) provinding a complete set of sophisticated objects to support
> A) means providing very basic mutex, conditional variables, thread,
> independent of each other. B) would provide these and more, and
> sophisticated uses like waiting for multiple conditions, prioritised
> mutexes/CV's, even allowing to wait on socket (and any other
> condition) together with threading primitives.
It's a multi-staged plan. B) is going to require A) to be
implemented, and frankly, no one really knows what B) should be
(researchers have been pondering this for decades, and though we've
got some better constructs, even these are full of problematic
cases). So the goal is to initially provide A), meaning only the
basic primitives implemented portably, correctly, safely and simply.
From there programmers will have a common base to work out from in
trying to define the next generation of threading concepts (including
those already available in other languages, such as CSP).
> I for one have no preference on the choice. But every time people
> should be independent of thread" or similar, my question pops up in
A Mutex concept, though related, should always be independent of the
> Miki Jovanovic.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk