From: Moshe Matitya (Moshe.Matitya_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-24 09:20:57
How would you say your thread-pool libraries compare with Philipp
Henkel's threadpool library [<http://threadpool.sourceforge.net/>]?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of k-oli_at_[hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:21 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] interrest in a thread-pool library
> I follow the discussion about boost.future since the review request
> I'm using Braddocks future implementation for my threadpool library -
> are interessted in (I've uploaded two versions in the boost
> The library provides:
> - thread creation policies: determines the managemnt of worker threads
> - fixed set of threads in pool
> - create workerthreads on demand (depending on context)
> - let worker threads ime out after certain idle time
> - channel policies: manages access to queued tasks
> - bounded channel with high and low watermark for queuing tasks
> - unbounded channel with unlimited numer of queued tasks
> - rendezvous syncron hand-over between producer and consumer
> - queueing policy: determines how tasks will be removed from channel
> - FIFO
> - LIFO
> - priority queue (attribute assigned to task)
> - smart insertions and extractions (for instance remove oldest task
> certain attribute by newst one)
> - tasks can be chained and lazy submit of taks is also supported
> Braddocks future library).
> I've uploaded two versions.
> In version 1 a future is returned by submit of a task. Canceling the
> means removing the task form the channel if it is still pending.
> Version 2 returns a task object from the submit function. The task it
> be interrupted if its is cooperative (means it has some interruption
> in its code -> this_thread::interruption_point() ).
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk