Re: [boost] [futures] boost::futures

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-10 04:37:59

Jeff Garland wrote:

> Sure, but the point of the active object is that the concurrency
> approach is a detail is hidden behind the interface of the object.

It's clear that you're using a broader definition of "active object" - any 
object that provides an asynchronous interface. I'm not, I'm interested in 
the specific case of:

>> The classic active object idiom, as I understand it, deals with
>> the shared state problem by implicitly serializing the method calls
>> via a message queue, so that concurrent access to the state is
>> eliminated.

The significance of the classic definition is that you can take an existing 
single threaded object and turn it into an active object _automatically_. In 
Concur, for example, the language can do that for you; the various proposals 
for a Boost implementation do something similar.

If you use the broader definition, AO becomes a pattern, and you can't 
implement it in either the language or the library.

> If you haven't already you might want to have a look at this paper:
>
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/lavender96active.html

I will, thank you.