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
>> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk