Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bill Klein (bill_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 14:55:15

Iain.Hanson wrote:
> I go for thread alone dies. If the parent does not catch the
> exception then you will abort. I will be impossible to write
> reliable systems if the whole process dies due to one thread
> throwing an exception. An example of this would be a client /
> server system with thread per client. If one client could bring the
> whole process down that would effectively be a denial of service
> attack on the other clients.

I disagree with you at least a little bit... The system you describe
(I've written one) should have a bunch of catch()s in the thread
start function (including a catch all) and probably log what it caught
(since if it caught something that far down there might be something
very wrong going on)... I'm only scared that silently "eating"
exceptions will make it easier to forget to do this and lead to harder
to find problems... (But like I say, I disagree only a little bit. I
understand what you're saying about not wanting your program to
crash just because you forgot a catch :)

 - Bill

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at