Re: [boost] [threadpool] relation with TR2 proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] relation with TR2 proposal
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-13 16:19:50

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <k-oli_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] relation with TR2 proposal

>
> Am Samstag, 13. September 2008 10:29:25 schrieb vicente.botet:
>> Olivier what about adding launch_in_pool to the threadpool library?
>
> I don't know a reason to introduce launch_in_pool!

Well,  most of the applications will work very well with only one pool for 
all the tasks, so the library could provide a private one.
Do you think that applications will be more efficient with several pools? Do 
you have a use case? It would be interesting to compare both approaches.

>> Olivier, what will be the inpact on your library if it uses Anthony 
>> Futures
>> library instead? What will be missing on the Anthony Futures library?
>
> chaining tasks and lazy evaluation of task would not be possible. As 
> Anthony
> noticed in one of his previous post - Braddocks future lib has more 
> features.
> Maybe a merge of both future libs will become part of boost.

I remenber, the problem was with the set callback function.

Vicente