Re: [boost] Multi-processing - Boost future libraries?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-14 21:19:40

"Paul Baxter" <pauljbaxter_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:BAY101-DAV113579AA6AA3847FF4AF43B5BE0_at_phx.gbl...
> Any Boost plans to put any more focus towards threading and 
> multi-processing
> in the near future perhaps to provide more user experiences with libraries
> that solve programmer's problems. It would help advise any C++ threading
> standardisation effort.
>
> Has the effort moved towards say
> http://jupiter.robustserver.com/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk
>
> 1) Boost Thread library work seems to have slowed considerably and yet now
> more than ever this is one area where C++ is sadly lacking. Recent
> commentaries such as Kevlin's on this list have not necessarily flattered
> the Boost thread design, but do we have a champion(s) who are/could help 
> to
> address this, or are alternative efforts happening instead behind the 
> scenes
> in C++ working groups?
>
> I've seen lots of excellent advise from Peter Dimov, Dave Abrahams and 
> many
> others but is it the case that its just seen as too thorny a problem for
> individual's to commit to, or is Boost thread considered sufficient?
>
> 2) Is Shmem being considered for the full-scale Boost library treatment as
> it appears to have a great deal of useful functionality to support 
> existing
> OS threading and shared memory techniques.
>
> I realise reaching a full consensus may be impossible, but I would argue
> that multi-processing through threading, process control and shared data
> structures is an area of critical importance to C++ in the next few years. 
> A
> well-understand pragmatic but not perfect fit to C++ is better than none 
> at
> all.

Agreed.

One of the things the committee's library working group members have to 
learn to endure is criticism for standardizing library component x when y is 
obviously so much better. Library x could be about every library we ever 
standardized, and y is short for an improved version that is so good it also 
cures disease and promotes world peace, but is, unfortunately, vaporware.

Out of respect for Kevlin Henney, the proposal to standardize Boost.Threads 
has been tabled. But if Kevlin's promised improved design fails to 
materialized, I for one will press the LWG to take up the Boost.Threads 
proposal again.

--Beman