Date: 2001-06-22 09:43:46
--- In boost_at_y..., "Reich, Shalom" <Shalom.Reich_at_g...> wrote:
> > From: williamkempf_at_h... [mailto:williamkempf_at_h...]
> > > But it is also not unknown to create a fixed size pool of Thread
> > > objects, and then start them later on demand.
> > I'm curious as to why. This just doesn't seem like the best
> > to any problem.
> Eliminate the overhead of thread creation and destruction. The
> approach is to start the threads in the pool and pass the "Command"
> objects. The thread then invokes the run() or execute() on the
This is not the same argument being made. I fully understand the
need for thread pools, but threads in a thread pool are not created
in a two phase construction pattern. Greg was describing a pattern
in which thread objects (as opposed to threads) were created enmasse
and later "started".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk