From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 03:45:37
In message <uwtm242yy.fsf_at_[hidden]>, David Abrahams
>"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> The reason I threw this one in, is that there was a suggestion (from Kevlin
>> Henney's thread proposal if I remember correctly) to decouple thread object
>> creation, from the actual execution of the thread, so that then we can tweak
>> the threads properties with getters/setters before we execute the thread
>> (think thread priority, scheduling policy etc).
>> Does this make sense or am I barking up the wrong tree?
>Usually when I hear "let's make an instance in a special
>not-fully-functional state so we can tweak it with getters and setters
>before we really bring it to life," little alarm bells go off. It
>complicates the object invariant and injects often-unwanted state into
>the program. How about using the parameter library to set these
Just to clarify, my proposal was that things like these would get passed
in as parameters of thread creation, so constructor arguments, not
post-construction setters. Once a thread is running there are only a few
properties that would be sensibly amenable to "getters and setters",
such as execution priority.
-- ____________________________________________________________ Kevlin Henney phone: +44 117 942 2990 mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden] mobile: +44 7801 073 508 http://www.curbralan.com fax: +44 870 052 2289 Curbralan: Consultancy + Training + Development + Review ____________________________________________________________
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk