Re: [boost] Re: [Formal review] Singleton library

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
>>compilers...)
>>    
>>
>
>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.
>
>Jonathan
>  
>
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.

-Jason