RE: [boost] Boost.threads standardization wishlist

From: Kick Damien-DKICK1 (dkick1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 15:12:45

Lee Brown [lee_at_[hidden]] wrote:

> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/22840> I've gotten
> > the sense that there tends to be a far amount of disagreements
> > that amounts to a "on Windows, I have done this" and "with
> > Pthreads, I would have done the other."  Well, I am a developer
> > who has a POSIX bias; i.e. I don't know Windows and have never
> > written a line on it.  What I really would love to have would be
> > POSIX++, a standard for C++ interfaces to system functionality as
> > POSIX is for C.  I would love to have Pthreads++, for example.  
>
> I am convinced that these disagreements are unnecessary.

Fair enough.  And I believe that Bill Kempf is making a good effort at
showing us that the differences are less significant than the
similarities (as opposed to just speculating, like myself).  However,
I still think that a Pthreads++ would be of value even if it was as
unnecessary as you think it is.  For example, if Boost.threads could
be implemented for *IX on top of something like Pthreads++ in such a
way as it exposed it as a lower-level interface, I think that could be
something of a win-win situation.

> No doubt there are choices to be made.  With policy based design,
> most choices may be implemented within one framework.  This is,
> after all, the reason for policy based design in the first place.

Surely there must be a limit to the flexibility possible with a policy
based design, though.

> It makes "my way or the highway" less of an issue.  It lets the user
> do things the way they want.  It gives them all the choices (perhaps
> recommending one) .  Choice is what freedom is about.

Well, I don't think anyone has been advocating "my way or the highway"
when it comes to chosing threading libraries.  For example, if one did
not believe that it was possible to create the grand unified theory of
C++ threading libraries, one could still choose betwen Pthreads, the
currently non-existant Pthreads++, Windows threading, Rogue Wave, ACE,
etc.  I think everyone (whoever they are) agrees that one should get
as close to a single standard for threading in C++ as is possible, but
only as close as makes sense.  Bill Kempf is trying to show that this
is pretty close but apparently not everyone agrees (e.g., the Marc
Briand quote).  I would prefer that Boost.threads (or something
similar) can prove its point but for now I'm still sitting on the
fence.

> God bless America!

And what about everybody else?  Choice is what freedom is about, after
all.  <smile>

--
Damien Kick