Boost logo

Boost :

From: Matthew Hurd (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-26 01:34:05

> On Behalf Of Sean Kelly
> Sent: Monday, 26 January 2004 4:38 PM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Thread request: event object
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > How is this different, and safer, than the traditional event variable?
> >
> > (See
> My goal is really mostly improved efficiency for the Windows side. I
> don't want to have to use a mutex if I don't need one.

I think this is the crux of the matter. People will not bother with a
library if there is overhead beyond what the native system provides,
especially for something like concurrency. I can't pay for it as I have to
keep my performance competitive.

If you can wrap the event mechanism to look like a resource acquisition,
similar to a scoped mutex lock acquisition, then you should be as safe as
can be expected, I think.

You'd end up with a common concept for resource acquisition, for mutexes and
other operating system resources as I suggested previously.

In my mind this makes a strong basis for a boost asynch socket and file io
design as well.

Is this thinking right?

Matt Hurd.

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