Re: [boost] Thread Interest Query

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-18 11:06:20

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric D Crahen" <crahen_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Thread Interest Query

> On June 14 2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
>
> > I, for one, don't have a problem with two Boost libraries having
> > overlapping functionality, provided they are significantly different,
> > and each has applications areas where it would be clearly superior to
> > the other.
> >
> > But if two libraries differ only in minor ways, it would just be
> > divisive to include both in Boost.
>
> I think the design of the two is significantly different in several
> ways. ZThreads provides a thread model that includes interruption,
> provides a very OO interface. Boost.Threads aims to privide a model that
> includes cancelation. and provides more of a template based interface.

The difference between cancellation and interruption is very subtle.  And
Boost.Threads doesn't preclude interruption.  I also wouldn't classify
Boost.Threads as "a template based interface".  There are very few templates
in Boost.Threads, and most of them that are there are an artifact of the
implementation and don't show in the client usage.

> Additionally, ZThreads also includes a framework for creating and using
> tasks and not just creating and synchronizing threads. Boost.Threads
> provides a creative way to work with scoped locks. I think they only
> overlap in the most basic ideas (like they both have thread & mutex
> classes) but there are some differnces in how the implementations of
> those ideas behave and how you interact with them. The differences are
> more than this is just another way to represent a mutex or this is another
> way to write a thread class.

Eric, maybe you should write that paper that compares and contrasts the two
libraries in depth.  The comparison would be useful for both of us, and
would make it easier for people to decide if there is benefit in having two
libraries.

Bill Kempf