Boost logo

Boost :

From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-24 22:54:02

"Ion Gaztañaga" wrote:

> do you know any windows implementation
> for process-shared condition variables?

> I would love also non-connection oriented message oriented ipc,
> something similar to datagram unix socket or a connection oriented stream
> ipc, like stream unix sockets. As far as I know cygwin a similar uses
> to emulate unix sockets, so I have not seen a pure windows source code
> anywhere.
Giallo library ( typed from head) is attempt to create
TCP/IP Boost library. It may or may not fit with this request.

[exceptions versus error code]
> When using create only version, if the object is already created, I
> suppose
> you would like another exception to be thrown, something like
> boost::shmem::already_created. The no throwing versions would return 0 if
> any error is found. Is that right?
Copy constructor may throw.

[lean offset_ptr]
> A char pointer could point to any byte in the segment, so (ptrdiff_t -1)
> would be valid. I can add a new base class for offset_ptr that considers
> (ptrdiff_t-1) zero, so that the user can use that pointer if he wants.
I wanted to write (ptrdiff_t)-1 or 0xFFF...FFF.

>12. The simple algorithm to find fitting memory
>> Maybe if the library has interface to plug in different
>> algorithm (no clue now how it would look like).
> I will add another algorith to show that algorithm can be chosen via
> template parameter.
An inspiration for algorithms could be found
on (it is complete and complex
framework with lot of allocators).

[fixing buggy STLs vs own containers]
>> Maybe the library could list those offending STLs and instruction how
>> to fix them manually to be useable with shmem. Such a fix should
>> not change behaviour of applications, right?
> I will add changes needed for Dinkum STL, but I don't know if publishing
> template lines and the changes needed can lead to any legal problem.
Problems: would be ridiculous IMHO. People may not like to fiddle
with STL but it could be stressed these changes are safe.

>>>>d) support for "transactions": I would like to
>> - transactions with isolation level 1:
>> - transactions with isolation level 2:
> Sounds like it can be a layer above shmem library, another library
> perhaps.
I am not sure:
 - transaction mechanism would likely need to have access
   to very details of shmem on low level (like checking
   whether an object is still there not via exception).
I have feeling shmem should be designed and tested with
hooks to support transaction.

Ideally there would be common framework for transactions
libraries like shmem would implement and obey.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at