Re: [boost] Re: New file uploaded to boost

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-22 14:35:56

At 12:22 PM 5/22/2001, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:

 >...  One result of this factoring
 >is that all the mutex types now have an unspecified locking policy,
 >meaning attempts to recursively lock the mutex by a single thread
 >will result in undefined behavior instead of in lock_error exceptions.

Seems like a reduction in safety.  Is it costly to continue to throw 
lock_error exceptions?

 >I'm most interested in opinions about the factoring of mutex.  If
 >this sounds like a good idea then we should also factor out
 >recursive_mutex in the same manner.

OK with me, but I'm not a threading expert.  Seems a bit clearer than one 
mutex types with three lock types.

 >  I'm a tad concerned with the
 >length of names produced by this, though: recursive_mutex,
 >recursive_try_mutex and recursive_timed_mutex.

They don't seem that long to me.  And better that the more abbreviated 
suggestions.

By the way, I have now used Boost.threads in one test program (with Jens' 
bounded queue) and one real application.  Very good results with both.

The one need that keeps coming up is thread-safe counter known to hold at 
least 32 bits.

--Beman