Re: [boost] Comments on the thread library

From: Lie-Quan Lee (llee1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-26 08:34:44

At Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:30:44 -0500 (EST),
jeremy siek wrote:

> For example, the mutex class is currently not as efficient as possible
> because it has to support a timed lock in addition to the usual lock (see
> current discussion between Rich Lee and Bill). But who says we have to
> group these two kinds of locking into the same class! We need to
> orthogonalize the implementation and slap a generative interface on the
> whole thing!

Agree! What I want to do is to use a policy-based design to have a
mutex generative interface so that users could a mutex with a
combination of features (for example, checked and nonrecursive, or
timed lock and unchecked) they want. In addtion, named template
arguement technique could be applied in the mutex case to create more
user friendly interface. To create such a mutex interface will be more
than joyful. However, I have to do other timed work in next a couple
of weeks. I will do that after I finished my timed work. 

Rich

Cheers,
--
Lie-Quan Lee