Re: [boost] Future of Boost.Thread, date-time, and C++0x

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-10 20:17:49

On Oct 10, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:

> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>
>> The only suggestion I have here, from a standards point of view, is
>> for the standard to anticipate and support user-defined mutexes/locks
>> in the easiest way possible so that libraries such as boost can  
>> easily
>> build upon the standard foundation.  This philosophical foundation is
>> in the standard-proposed document.  Whether or not we've actually
>> achieved this goal is a separate question. ;-)
>
> Is there a summary somewhere regarding the extensibility features of  
> the
> threading library?
>
> In particular, is this threading library you're standardizing going to
> create threading objects that hide their thread handle such that they
> can't be extended to work with custom multiplexers?
>
> [I am horribly concerned by the ever-increasing trend to write
> concrete-style components that support only least-common-denominator
> system features, with no possibly way to extend them due to  
> inability to
> 'get at' some inner handle.  Boost filesystem, Boost thread, iostream
> all do this, making it impossible for even a completely normal vanilla
> single-threaded GUI program to be able to safely use them (due to the
> fact they might block, and there's no way to multiplex them with the
> GUI, despite the fact the OS would be able to do this).
>
> The net effect is that these style of components are mostly useless to
> most modern single-threaded applications writers.  I am hoping this
> threading library you are working on is something I will actually be
> able to use, and not just something made for terminal-based POSIX  
> systems.]

I hope you'll be able to use it too.  The current wording has:

class thread
{
...
     native_handle_type native_handle();
};

which I believe may address your concerns (not 100% positive).  On a  
POSIX system this might return a pthread_t.  The idea is to give you  
sufficient rope (hang or save, your choice).  That being said, I seem  
to remember some concerns over this feature and can not at this point  
firmly establish its presence in the final draft (just too many balls  
in the air).

-Howard