Subject: Re: [boost] [future|interprocess] Could futures live in shared memory and synchronize process?
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-18 12:19:25
Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> If you were implementing an interprocess future that only supported POD types,
> wouldn't the POD object used for the future's value just sit in the shared
> memory? The future wouldn't need any pids. It just needs a shared_ptr,
> mutex, and condition, all of which are provided by interprocess, aren't they?
That was the case I was referring to. I was talking a bout shared future
objects not shared data. Of course, the correct way to implement a
process-future would be to share data. But could not pass the future
object (which lives in the process that called spawn) to any other
process, something that you can do with threads (the thread that waits
for completion does not need to be the thread that created the future).
And we will need to to create a shared memory that goes away when a
process dies (which is not true for POSIX systems). In theory, it could
be possible, but it has some rough edges.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk