From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-29 17:46:31
On Dec 29, 2005, at 3:25 PM, David A. Greene wrote:
> Is there a desire to make it thread-safe at some point, or is
> it not seen as worthwhile?
Users have been asking for thread safety for years. It is *definitely*
worth while, and has kept people from using Signals far too often.
> What would be involved in making
> it thread-safe? Additional runtime overhead? Additional
> library code? Both? Something else?
There would be some run-time overhead, although it could be factored
out into a threading policy if it was problematic. Dealing with
deletion of trackable objects and disconnection of slots in a
multi-threaded environment becomes rather tricky, both to implement and
to specify. That, compounded with that lack of time I keep whining
about, has conspired to keep Signals single-threaded even though we
should have implemented multi-threaded support a long time ago.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk