RE: [boost] Re: [Threads] Simple active object wrapper, take 2

From: scott (scottw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-22 18:51:33

Sorry, but there was a fairly awful typo in the previous
message. See below;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of scott
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:44 AM
> To: 'Boost mailing list'
> Subject: RE: [boost] Re: [Threads] Simple active object 

<snip>

> Finally, having deployed (SA) ActiveObjects I would be 
> disappointed to see
> any new mechanism for thread communication. Proof of a successful
> implementation
> of SA (IMHO) would be that it became the _only_ mechansim for 
> inter-thread
> communication. Of course, in the real world, this is not 
> going to happen but
> I would offer it as a noble intent :-)
> 
> I tentatively suggest that the ActiveObject that most of us 
> want is the AA
> variety.

should have been SA (symmetric activation) not AA

> We can see the objects exchanging the Method Requests in a symphony of
> optimal
> operation - in our heads. But between our heads and the 
> "tools at hand" I
> believe
> the symphony becomes something else, primarily due to 
> AA-based environments
> and
> associated culture.
> 

Cheers,
Scott