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

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-05 09:19:38

At 02:38 PM 1/4/2001 +0000, William Kempf wrote:
 >--- 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.

I don't think it is worth a detailed discussion.  If you are the one who is 
doing the work, you get to decide.  I don't think it is an issue of the 
boost submission policy, but rather issues of timing, workload, and 
design.  Splitting into phase 1 and a later phase 2 should only be done if 
it doesn't compromise the design, but otherwise it is your choice.

--Beman