[boost] Re: Re: Re: [Thread] Perennial rw_mutex question

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-05 04:20:32

"Hurd, Matthew" <hurdm_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:BA1220310B07EC4A8E321B451E07AF47766CCC_at_msgbal501.ds.susq.com...
> > On Behalf Of Michael Glassford
> > * Rename to improve consistency and eliminate abbreviations:
> >      Use "read" and "write" instead of "shared" and "exclusive".
> Just a quick note from the bike shop.  I've always had an issue with
> rw/read/write as this is a common use case rather than
shared/exclusive
> which is the real deal.
>
> Going along these lines I think rw_mutex is a bad name, though I
grant
> it is commonly understood.
>
> The oxymoron shareable_mutex or something other shorter name would
make
> me happier.

I agree that shared/exclusive are more general terms than read/write.
I stuck with read/write for now for several not very weighty reasons:
1) AFAIK, that's the common, accepted terminology for this type of
mutex; 2) that's the terminology most of the library was already
using; 3) some names didn't seem to convert conveniently to the
shared/exclusive terminolgy; 4) using read/write seems to result in
shorter names. I'm not stuck on a particular terminology, however;
what I care about is that it's consistent (not read/write in some
places and shared/exclusive in others, which is how it was before).

In other words, I'm open to renaming suggestions. Here's a list of
currently used names that any naming proposal would need to address:

classes
-------
read_write_mutex
try_read_write_mutex
timed_read_write_mutex

scoped_read_write_lock
scoped_try_read_write_lock
scoped_timed_read_write_lock

member functions
----------------
read_lock
try_read_lock
timed_read_lock
write_lock
try_write_lock
timed_write_lock

enumeration constants
---------------------
sp_writer_priority
sp_reader_priority
sp_alternating_many_reads
sp_alternating_single_read

Mike