From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 15:07:16
Michael Glassford <glassfordm_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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).
Sounds like it's not.
> 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?
Too many to write down ;-)
> 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.
Thanks for that!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk