Re: [boost] 2. It is unavoidable to use threads

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-13 17:27:12

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:53:05 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote
>
> > I don't follow how my interface was monolithic.  Unlike must multiplexor
> > designs I've seen it didn't have nary a mention of sockets, file i/o, etc.  It
> > wasn't a singleton, either. Of course, it's just an idea -- I haven't built it
> > -- perhaps it can't be done that way.  But believe me, I'd love to see some
> > alternate design suggestions -- I'm not locked into current current design
> > thinking by any means.  Any chance you are going to be able to post your
design?
> 
> For one thing, absolutely everyone that works with events within that
> framework needs to know about your multiplexor class, even if they dont
> actual need notification of low-level events.  This is unnecessary.

Well, I guess I don't see how that is the case -- but it's not really
important because I was just posting a potential interface for discussion. 
I'd rather discuss working frameworks and use those as a starting point...
 
> (There is one particular facet of my own implementation that I am
> unhappy with that prevents me from seriously recommending it as a whole.
>  It is present out of laziness, as I have not yet taken the time to
> figure out a solution.)
> 
> Later today, I think I'm going to post a few examples of a starting
> point of how I'd like a demultiplexor to look and feel.  More details
> and rationale then.

Ok great.  It would be nice if this would get posted to with Wiki -- on new
pages or whatever.  All the email get's dizzying after awhile...

Jeff