From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 23:36:59
On Thursday 12 February 2004 08:15 pm, scott wrote:
> but that is somewhat convenient. i dont have any real case
> for not building on top of boost::threads. i would wonder
> about losing touch with the available threading primitives.
> its hard enough making it work without having to work through
> an intermediary. but hiding the specifics of threads is
> a major benefit of boost::threads so i will (head down)
> look into this.
> the result wouldnt be an "alternate" model though :-)
>From the programmer's perspective, it is an alternative model: you don't need
to show them the threads underneath, you just need to show them the
Here's the rub: I'm interested. The problem is that I don't want this library
lost because it needs to be implemented for Posix, and Windows, and Mac, and
we tend to be rather skeptical about platform-specific libraries :)
> > 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 was not referring to UML actors, but to a model for (distributed)
> was there some specific aspect of alt-threads that needed
> elaboration (yeah, like everything :-) or were you suggesting
> a new direction for me to check out?
Well, you might be interested in this:
It describes the actor model of computation, which I think you might be
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk