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

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-14 04:10:50

Beman Dawes said:
> 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>

It seems I'm only slightly misunderstanding.  There aren't "four or five"
optional groups, but only two (assuming UNIX specification conformance
instead of just POSIX... is that a reasonable thing to do here?).  But
this still leaves me with optional functionality that may or may not be
present.  Which still leaves the question open about conditional
compilation.

But certainly thanks for the link.

> 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.

Yeah... and I have no problems eliminating "mandatory options".

William E. Kempf
wekempf_at_[hidden]