[boost] Re: Threads Rewrite?

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 12:00:45

David Abrahams wrote:
> Hi Boosters,
> 
> I've tried several times to contact Bill Kempf about moving forward
> with threads, even leaving him messages on his home answering machine.
> I've had no reply.  

That's too bad.

 > It's important that we make an effort to move
> Boost towards a uniform licensing scheme, and the threads library is
> an especially important one to do that for.  We've been talking about
> significant restructuring in this library; is it likely that we'll get
> to a point where the original code can be thrown out?  

Probably the most complex part to rewrite would be the win32 condition 
variable implementation and perhaps the read/write mutex implementation 
(though Bill didn't write that in the first place, and the original 
author has given permission to use the Boost license for his code, so 
maybe it's not necessary). The mutex, thread, and tss implementations 
are, in most places, fairly thin (though some think not thin enough) 
wrappers over platform APIs.

Also, I think in a rewrite it would make sense to ditch the MPTasks 
implementation and assume Mac OS applications will use the pthreads 
implementation. Unless someone wants to step forward and volunteer to 
help with that part.

 > That may be
> the only way we'll be able to change the license.  IMO the docs
> really *need* to be thrown out and re-done, even if the design were
> to stay substantially the same.

Any particular complaints?

> Thoughts?
> 

It would be a shame to have to duplicate work due to licensing issues, 
but if it must be done, it makes sense to do it now (well, post-1.32.0, 
of course). I'd be willing to attempt it.

Mike