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
> [...]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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk