Re: [boost] Boost.Threads - thread_desc concept

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-27 15:43:00

At 02:09 PM 6/27/2001, Jeremy Siek wrote:

 >I like the idea of providing two layers, 1) the basic thread_id and
 >lightweight API wrappers and 2) thread managers. This addresses Beman's
 >concern about people writing their own wrappers... because instead boost
 >will provide a standard wrapper (or set of wrappers) in layer 2). In
 >addition, layer 1) provides the flexibility that is needed in usage
 >scenarios that don't match those provided by layer 2).
 >
 >I'd prefer the lightweight API's to be free functions in namespace 
thread,
 >not static. I function scopes I like the option of "using" to shorten
 >typing.
 >
 >I like "thread_id" a lot as a name for the opaque thread handle.

But notice that thread::ref as proposed in other messages isn't a layer 1 
thread_id.  It is a ref counted layer 2 thread manager.  Layer 1 isn't 
exposed in a public interface, if it even exists (assuming I understand the 
proposal correctly).

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, John Max Skaller wrote:
 > 	class thread_api
 > 		// lighweight API wrapper
 > 		// purpose: platform independence
 >
 > 	class posix_api : public thread_api
 > 		// posix extension
 >
 > 	class win32_api: public thread_api
 > 		// win32 extension: boost only
 >
 > 	class thread_id
 > 		// copyable thread id wrapper
 >
 > 	class my_favourite_thread_manager
 > 		// design competetion on boost to choose
 > 		// one or more alternatives

I haven't thought in terms of that many layers, but a layered approach is 
very much the approach I'd like to see explored.

--Beman