From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 21:58:06
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:15:19 +1300, scott wrote
> > > very briefly, the boost model treats threads as a resource
> > (fair enough
> > > to :-) and submits code fragments for asynchronous execution. in the
> > > alternate model, threads come about as a consequence of
> > instantiating
> > > final (a la java) objects. the distinguishing attribute
> > being that threads
> > > only
> > > run code that is "part of themselves" rather than code
> > being submitted
> > > from "outside". execution of the code is initiated by sending of a
> > > message (within my vocabulary that is actually a signal).
> > the message
> > > can contain arbitrary data.
> > This reminds me of the actor model of distributed
> > computation. If you are
> > familiar with actors, could you briefly compare/contrast your
> > approach
> > against them?
> i know of uml's actor but not sure if that's the same thing.
> and my knowledge of uml is so lame i suspect i shouldnt attempt
> any analogies.
I believe you'all are talking about 'Active Objects'. Doug Schmidt, primary
author of ACE, has written extensively on this subject. Take a look at this
ACE has direct support for the paradigm. It's been a couple years since I
looked at it, but as I recall using a bunch of template magic object methods
are morphed into stubs that queue messages for the object thus disconnecting
the requesting thread from the execution of the method.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk