Re: [boost] Re: Thread-safe containers

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-07 07:19:23

Joel Salomon wrote:
> John Torjo wrote:
>> Use mutexes.
> and
>> In my experience, I hardly need just a container to be thead-safe. I
>> usually need more data in addition to the container (which needs to
>> be thread-safe). For instance, an extra latest_access_time, out_file,
>> used_for_the_first_time, etc.
>>
>> Thus, to me, the benefit of having a thread-safe container is very
>> small.
> One thread-safe container that might be useful is a channel - a queue
> that one thread writes to and another reads to, the reader blocking
> when the channel is empty.

Right. This is the _only_ thread-safe(*) container (that I'm aware of) that 
is generally useful. Even here, there is a choice between non-blocking and 
blocking semantics (which preclude a lock-free implementation.) Having a max 
size implies blocking on push, of course.

(*) For the implied definition of "thread safe" that we are using in this 
context ("strong" thread safety).