From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-01 21:13:47
> On 02/09/05, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Matt Hurd <matt.hurd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Roland wrote:
> >> I would rather like to see the current interface kept as much as possible.
> >> Did anyone yet try to find out how deeply the boost::thread is currently
> >> wired into the boost lib?
> > Good point. I'll have a look at where a mutex is currently used. I
> > don't think threads and thread pools are used too much in the libs.
> I have to agree with Roland. I hope you're not thinking of major
> interface changes. IMO the interface is quite well thought-out for
> the domain and level of abstraction it covers. The problems lie
Just a rewrite to start.
There are some problems with the interface I see that prevent clean
generic use, but the existing stuff can be re-wrapped, as I do in my
current code base, to provide such an interface so it is not worth
delaying to consider. Let's just get it restructured first.
Much of the new stuff people have planned will fit into level 1.
Level 1 requirements will drive interface changes if need be I
Additional basic ops such as atomics and fencing will slot into level
0 pretty easily given a platform specific approach but that is
orthogonal to the rewrite. I hope we can tackle this pretty quickly
after the restructure as this will complete 90% of the services
extended frameworks will need.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk