Re: [boost] [GSoC] Boost.Process

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Boost.Process
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-29 11:02:56

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:03:36 +0300, Dmitry Goncharov  
<dgoncharov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]Just wonder, Boris, what made you reimplement my original proposal?

As we probably should start a new thread to discuss the signal handler I  
try to keep my answer short. But the main reason why I reimplemented the  
signal handler was that a Boost.Asio extension should follow Boost.Asio  
patterns (assuming that the goal is to improve chances that Christopher  
ships a signal handler with Boost.Asio one day).

> You new version is no longer uses a mutex inside a signal handler.
> It still improperly handles errno, doesn't care about blocking inside a  
> signal handler, doesn't care about setting FD_CLOEXEC, doesn't pass  
> siginfo to the user, doesn't let the user to associate a signal with a  
> file descriptor.
> Besides, it uses a thread, a mutex, a condvar, a shared_ptr, a weak_ptr,  
> a deque and a map. None of this is required.

I welcome test cases to improve the implementation (and of course  
patches). However your signal handler for example doesn't support a  
synchronous wait. As all other Boost.Asio I/O objects support both  
synchronous and asynchronous I/O there is something fundamental missing.  
While my signal handler's implementation can surely be improved your  
signal handler's interface doesn't even fulfill basic requirements of a  
Boost.Asio I/O object.

Boris