Re: [boost] [thread] new thread_pool and dispatcher classes

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-07 00:14:44

Gregory Dai wrote:
> On 5/6/07, Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> namespace boost {
>> class semaphore
>> {
>> public:
>>         semaphore(std::size_t count) : m_count(count), m_mutex(),
>> m_condition() { }
>>
>>         void lock()
>>         {
>>                 mutex::scoped_lock sl(m_mutex);
>>                 while (m_count == 0)
>>                         m_condition.wait(sl);
>>                 assert(m_count > 0);
>>                 m_count--;
>>         }
>>
>>         void unlock()
>>         {
>>                 mutex::scoped_lock sl(m_mutex);
>>                 m_count++;
>>                 m_condition.notify_one();
>>         }
>>
>> private:
>>         std::size_t m_count;
>>         mutex m_mutex;
>>         condition m_condition;
>> };
>>
>> } // namespace boost
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Could we use more conventional method names such as wait() and post()
> instead of lock() and unlock(), please? Even acquire() and release() sound
> better. In addition, I'd suggest two more member methods:
> try_wait/try_acquire(size_t timeout) and count().

lock() and unlock() are good for usage with scoped_lock (in the code I 
posted I actually didn't use the semaphore with a scoped_lock, but I 
think it's a common use case). As far as the additions you suggest - I 
probably didn't wrote a full fledged semaphore, just what I needed to 
implement the stuff I needed. I agree that if it makes it to be publicly 
available, these edges should be smoothed.