Boost logo

Boost :

From: Eric Woodruff (Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 12:49:17

Personally, I don't think advanced_thread should compose a boost::thread or derive from it. boost::thread is fairly impotent. If the advanced_thread was named asyncronous_function_adapter, boost::thread would be depreciated, as I said earlier. (Of course, for the platform neutrality, asyncronous_function_adapter would have to dervive from a protected private base class where the platform-specific code would reside.)

However, removing the non-templated (publically accessible) base type would probably introduce complexity in the thread pool (which would again need to be renamed if the thread was thrown out). I suggest instead putting boost::thread in a sub namespace and frowning at its use.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Moore, Dave
  Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
  Sent: Monday, 2002:August:05 12:59 PM
  Subject: RE: Re: Threads & Exceptions

> My complaints on the ifdefs were on the underside of the thread. C++ alone
  provides plenty of
> mechanisms for mapping the common interface to different platforms, with
  typesafety (instead of
> the reinterpret_casts<>!)--again, the topic of a different discussion, at
  which point it would be
> easier just to submit a replacement as example.

  Fair enough, but it's a hard problem to solve w/o resorting to (1)
  #including os-specific files like <windows.h> in the interface which wreak
  havoc on namespaces, macros, etc., or (2) having a complete shadow set of
  dynamically allocated Pimpl classes. It's always interesting to see
  alternative approaches, though.

> There is no reason to make users of thread handle their own exceptions
  because there is only one
> mechanism to do it, and every user will have to repeat this code in their
> in thread processes have always been ambiguous to me, it seems that no
  framework out there
> supportws them properly and just expects them to be caught and sometimes

> If you'll take note of the advanced_thread usage, it not provides a
  generic way to run any
> boost::function asynchronously, get its return value and deal with
  exceptions it may throw--a
>complete solution and something currently not yet available. Of course one
  could take the
>perspective that advanced_thread is really an asynchronous function
  adapter, but that deprecates the >need to support what is currently offered
  by boost::thread--which is why I suggested a possible

  I agree with your statements about reuse and flexibitly for asynchronous
  function calls and flexibility in handling exceptions. I'm just not sure
  that an inheritance from (or replacement of) boost:thread is the best

  Consider an alternative: a thread_pool object which can enqueue
  boost::function calls and distribute them to a managed pool of threads ready
  to execute them. boost::function gives you the hook to implement -any-
  scenario of argument passing, return value capture, and exception handling
  you wish. This is a problem (IMHO) that suggests a solution via composition
  of two existing classes, not inheritance.


  For a draft of a solution which may (hopefully) find its way into


  Unsubscribe & other changes:

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