Subject: Re: [boost] Stacking iterators vs. dataflow
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 14:13:33
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
> The direction indicated by >>= aligns with the direction of the signal
> (function call), but the data can flow in either way (either sent
> forward in the function call argument, or sent back through through
> the return value). So, you could do
> rng >>= funcA >>= funcB
> funcB >>= funcA >>= rng
> depending on how the func and rng components are implemented.
That seems a bit odd; this is a DATA-flow library, so I would expect
the direction of the symbol to describe the direction of the data
flow. And isn't the data passing method a detail of the implementation
(in this case Signals) that your Generic layer should be hiding?
But I'm not sure I understand you; here rng is a data source and
(surely) it supplies values via its return value; how can it be
implemented to supply values via a parameter?
> As far as the dataflow library goes, some sort of a "automatic task
> division" library would indeed be great in conjunction with dataflow,
> but I see this as orthogonal to dataflow.
It doesn't have to be _automatic_ (i.e. runtime) task division; just
some way of running some components in their own threads. The
thread-safe-signals work that you linked to before may be sufficient
for this, though I don't know enough about Boost.Signals to fully
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk