Re: [boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-12 21:18:35

At 11:52 AM 1/11/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 >
 >"William E. Kempf" wrote:
 >[...]
 >> > There is some chance you might talk me into accepting two flavors of
 >> > threading for the Standard - full threads and threads-lite in effect.
 >> > But picking and choosing between four or five optional thread 
features
 >> > leaves me cold.
 >>
 >> I can understand that, but my hands are somewhat tied by POSIX, whose
 >> standards bodies took the opposite stance on this issue.
 >
 >It seems to me that you're missing the purpose/role of The Single UNIX
 >Specification and various "Product Standards" within the UNIX branding/
 >certification program of The Open Group consortium: e.g. UNIX 95, UNIX
 >98 Workstation, UNIX 98 Server, etc.].
 >
 >Well, < note that this is rather old SUSv2-stuff. The current version
 >is SUSv3[/TC1](*) >
 >
 >http://www.unix-systems.org/version2/whatsnew/threadspaper.pdf
 >(Threads and the Single UNIX(R) Specification, Version 2)
 >
 ><quote>
 >
 >For conformance to the Single UNIX Specification, Version 2, the
 >threads options are split so that non-realtime functionality is
 >mandatory, and realtime functionality is grouped into a single
 >option: the Realtime Threads Feature Group.
 >
 ></quote>

Interesting. I spent about fifteen minutes with Google and The Open Group's 
search feature and couldn't come up with a formal specification for what 
threading "options" are mandatory for version 3.  Was the same division 
into just two flavors (first four "options" now mandatory, last three 
"options" mandatory for realtime) carried forward into version 3.  Do you 
have a link?

The idea of mandatory "options" is new to me. Wonders never cease.

At first I just thought it was funny, but on second thought it really seems 
seriously misleading to describe various functions as belonging to one 
option group or another, and then is bury the requirement that the option 
groups are mandatory in some difficult to find subsidiary publication.

--Beman