From: Jason Hise (chaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 15:00:55
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>Stefan Strasser wrote:
>>I don't vote because I have not (yet) looked at the library itself,
>>but from the review replies so far I'd like to moot that it may be
>>too early to include a singleton library which:
>> - is not MT safe
>> - is not tested with shared libraries
>> - seems not to be tested with many compilers(...several newer
>The third point is no big deal. A lot of porting often occurs after acceptance.
>I agree that MT support is crucial, and that shared library support is very
>important, if i is possible. Rather than reject the library because these
>problems haven't been addressed, let's try to address them during the review.
I don't think its fair to say that it is not MT safe... the MT aspects
just have not yet been extensively tested. There is a lock policy in
place, which is intended to lock the singleton in the lock's
constructor, and release the lock in the lock's destructor. A lock is
used during creation, destruction, and access of any of the singleton's
members via a proxy pointer. The only thing missing is a lock class
that actually performs the locking, and I am under the impression that
Boost.Threads probably provides something matching this description.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk