From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-17 06:50:16
Daniel Krügler (nee Spangenberg) wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen schrieb:
>>In this regard, I would also be interested in peoples' oppinion about Kevlin
>>Henney's threading approach as
>>he presented at the ACCU 2003 conference:
>>Even though I saw the talk, I could use much more detail explanations for
>>Anyway, his approach
>>is very different to normal threading libraries.
> I am also strongly interested in the answer to that question, which I asked
> Kempf a while ago.
> (Re: Boost proposals accepted by C++ committee, Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:12:20 +0200)
Please note that I do intend to consider this, but it will be quite some
time before I am able to because my first priority is to get more
familiar with the library and work on bug fixes; then possibly to move
some changes out of the thread_dev branch of CVS into the main branch;
then to think about suggestions for library improvements.
I believe Bill Kempf's original vision for the Boost.Thread library was
to implement low-level "plumbing" first, then to implement higher-level
abstractions such as mentioned in the above link using the lower level
code. I agree with this approach. I'm pretty certain that, in his mind,
the Boost.Thread library is still the low-level plumbing stage, and that
he wanted to get that firmly in place before spending a lot of time on
designing or implementing higher-level layer or layers. I'll likely
follow a similar course.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk