Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber] new version in vault
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-30 07:15:12
Oliver Kowalke-2 wrote:
>> I have a question. I understand we need fibers::mutex and
>> fibers::condition_variable, but could you explain why do we need a
>> fibers::lock_guard and fibers::unique_lock template classes? Why the ones
>> from Boost.Thread are not usable in the fiber context, at the end the
>> parameter can be any model of lockable?
> IT's a question of task - I was not sure if I should intermix the thread
> namespace with the fiber namespace.
> If the locks are generic enough we could share it between
Oliver, lock_guard and unique_lock are on boost namespace so no intermix of
namespaces. Is there any difference between yours boost::fibers::lock_guard
and boost::fibers::unique_lock and boost::lock_guard and boost::unique_lock?
If no, IMO you should remove them and request the user to use the provided
by Boost.Thread. If yes, either your mutex implementation do not model the
Lockable concept, or the boost::lock_guard and boost::unique_lock are not
enough generic or some feature is missing. In any case we need a clear
-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-fiber--new-version-in-vault-tp26557494p26573750.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk