From: Matthew Vogt (mvogt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-02 23:16:48
scott <scottw <at> qbik.com> writes:
> Got that. I have to leave it up to you. We seem to have worked through one
> major area of conceptualizing; schedulers and servants. These take a
> big whip to the business of taming threads. We are now at the point
> of deciding how these beasts will communicate amongst themselves. Is it
> to be "method-based" or "message-based"? I can see that your baby will
> sing but so does messaging.
Method-based can be layered above messages, if the messages support the
concept of having their dispatch addresses potentially pre-bound.
The scheduler of the message-driven system can do something like:
message m = dequeue();
where the unbound case calls a function that switches based on the message
code or content.
Then all the proxies need to do to yield a method-based interface is bind
the address into the message before queueing.
> If we can agree on something here then we would have a complete target for
> something built on boost.thread, i.e. there are no other "areas"?
I think messaging between thread contexts is a useful target.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk