[boost] Everyone: Thoughts on threads & exceptions

From: Eric Woodruff (Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 14:57:51

Any reasonably designed "MT" paradigm (here I assume your lazy hands mean
"multi-threading", or maybe it's just the nature of your isolating /
self-promoting profession) can require a call to thread.check_exception ()
somewhere, if not a call to join () (which is usually a good idea to do).
Why not consider other alternatives instead of dismissing all forms of
multi-threaded exceptions. Such as: a timeout that eventually calls
terminate () if an exception is observed in time. I'm sure other ideas can
be conceived as well...

In any event, more functionality, and user configurability can allow it to
work in almost every situation. boost's multi-threading paradigm show not
preclude certain usage. As I already mentioned, a call to terminate () is
trivially enabled.

----- Original Message -----
From: William E. Kempf
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Sent: Monday, 2002:August:05 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions

> Sorry, I'm confused at your use of the word "process."

I'm not sure why... if you understand the MT paradigm you should also
understand what a process is.  In any event...

> >From the sake of clarity, lets please reference thread1 and thread2,
where
> thread2 is spawned from thread1 and thread1 calls join on thread2,
catching
> an exception that caused thread1 to end.

That may be where the confusion lies.  There's no requirement that thread1
call join on thread2, and that's (one place) where the polling solution
falls down.

Bill Kempf
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost