From: simon meiklejohn (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-13 06:34:27
>I've made some modifications because defer_pool::stop was not waiting
>for finishing all work items if thread_sleep was removed in your
>- defer_pool : work items are queued into a thread pool; if
> defer_pool::stop returns, all work items have been processed
The omission was intentional - though your implementation
with deactivating the queue improves things significantly.
>- defer_thread : each work item is processed in a new thread; threads
>are never joined (call and forget)
>I believe that only defer_pool needs a list of work items.
>defer_pool with one thread in the pool should be mimic your
>implementation of defer_thread. So I would use defer_thread in a
yes, that makes sense.
Thanks for your input. I'll put the combined results up in the vault soon.
An interesting time to be boosting!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk