Boost logo

Boost :

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
>> >being a need for synchronization primitives even before we include
>> >portable thread support. We're basically close enough now to
>> >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
>> >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
>> 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.


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