Re: FW: [boost] Re: Re: Future of threads (III)

From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-16 23:23:40

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:49:36 +1300
"scott" <scottw_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 
> forwarding to boost on the assumption that it
> was your intention. apologies if i got that
> wrong.

Sorry, I must've sent the reply to you instead if the list as well. 
Apologies, and thanks for the correct redirection.

> I was responding to your mentioning of the "future" mechanism. Its
> a perfectly valid mechanism but I was trying to build a case for
> an implementation of boost::active_object that would never use
> it.

Matt's mention, actually, but the intent is the same.  I do not think
you need to use a "future" for an AO implementation, and I am not sure
that was Matt's intent either, though I could be misreading his intent.

> I can imagine that there are many approaches to application
> of the ActiveObject pattern. What I am trying to do so badly is
> steer discussions away from certain directions. Technically they
> may be completely justifiable. Strangely I have seen well intentioned
> implementations of AOs go down some of these paths and the result
> is not what anyone wants. And nobody really knows where it wandered
> off target.

I can see that.  I imagine they have gone down the same path of most
technical discussions, once they reach the implementation stage.  Most
of us love the idea of clean implementations, but once the rubber meets
the road, urgency seems to mitigate what at one time was important.

> actually i have no doubt it would result in something amazing; just
> not what i was hoping for in an active object :-)

One cool thing about open source projects, though, is that you have a
much better chance that it will end up how you want it because of your
involvement than you would if you were "just" a customer...

-- 
Jody Hagins
I'm successful because I'm lucky.   The harder I work, the luckier I
get.