Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]
From: Oliver Kowalke (k-oli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-12 14:14:19

Am 12.02.2011 19:51, schrieb Jeremy Maitin-Shepard:
> On 02/11/2011 11:33 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>> [snip]
>> I agree - boost.process should provide only the sync. wait (async. wait
>> should be left).
>> Maybe boost.process or another library can provide the async. wait
>> facility and the community has more time to discuss it.
>
> With only synchronous waiting, the library is fairly limited in utility.
> I would think that the sort of scripting tasks that synchronous waiting
> might be useful for would not likely be done in C++ to begin with.

you could implement async. wait with thread and future + sync. waiting 
(I know this solution has its limitations).
the async. waiting shouldn't a show stopper for boost.process - as this 
thread shows more discussion is required for a careful design of async. 
waiting (at least on POSIX -> interaction with other signals).
It can be added in the prospective development of boost.process.