From: Timmo Stange (ts_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-01 20:01:13
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
> Doug said that some people have recently been working on Boost.Signals
> and specifically addressed thread safety, but I'm not sure what the
> status of that is.
There is a working implementation by Frank Mori Hess in the boost
sandbox under thread_safe_signals and another (which is currently
not working) by me under signals.
The efforts are discussed on the users list and everybody is
welcome to contribute. I actually think that's what we need most
in the current situation as providing thread-safety seems to be
the least of our problems ;).
For a quick summary: everybody agreed on dropping the "trackable"
base class design as it cannot be made thread-safe. Besides that,
compatibility with the current Boost.Signals has been maintained,
even though it stands in the way of optimal scalability and also
complicates the implementation. Independent design questions seem
to fade away as quickly as they're raised, because of the lack of
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk