Re: [boost] [GSoC] Some Ideas about the Boost.Process

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Some Ideas about the Boost.Process
From: Felipe Tanus (fotanus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-25 15:42:01

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Boris Schaeling <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Sounds good to me! We could look at Ilya's draft to see how he modeled the
> class interfaces. And we could take the implementation from my draft as it
> has been thoroughly tested on several platforms.
>
> Boris

Great!

I have been thinking about include some basic signal IPC for the
library. This would help increase the possibilities when a user want
to do IPC. What do you think about use POSIX or Windows API signals
according to the machine? This way if the programmer use the
definitions, we could use an equivalent in other platform. I discovery
that Windows has only 2 signals which are defined with a different
number than POSIX, SIGBREAK and SIGABRT. If was not by theses, would
be trivial define the constants.

Also, of course, the signals may be used with user defined constants.

-- 
Felipe de Oliveira Tanus
E-mail: fotanus_at_[hidden]
Blog: http://www.itlife.com.br
Site: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~fotanus/
-----
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." - Gandalf