Re: [boost] Re: Proposal: Library to manage processes

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-20 18:03:14

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:39:50 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote
> Clearly this would be interesting to a lot of people.
> 
> Since you've already written working code and presumably dealt with 
> lots of practical issue of design and implementation, maybe it would 
> be most helpful if you summarize your proposal in the form of a 
> library documentation.  This would make it much easier to discuss 
> such a thing.  This would be helpful because lots of people are 

I agree -- this post has already received several responses indicating interest.

> going to see different applications for this and will have a lot to say.
> 
> Someone is going to want to to look like threads
> Someone is going to want it to control asyncronous processes on networked
> machines
> Someone is going to twant to pass data via [filtered] streams
> Someone else is going to feel that's too inefficient
> etc.
> etc.
> 
> Although this is looking simple right now. Its a big topic.  Hang on 
> to your hat.

While I agree that this will likely happen, I, for one, will argue for
simplicity.   We won't get all these features and we don't need them.  A
blocking implementation can be trivially wrapped with threads -- write that as
an example it doesn't need to be a feature of the library.  The 'inefficient
folks' should abandon C++ and go back to C.  We don't have an async i/o design
for standard streams and I don't think we should try to solve that with this
library -- and anyone that complains about this should come forth with a
proposal as far as I'm concerned....

Jeff