Re: [boost] [Review] Review results for Lockfree

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Review results for Lockfree
From: Ralf Globisch (RGlobisch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-23 05:36:46

>>> On 8/23/2011 at  3:13 AM, in message
<01c601cc6131$dc5d5e20$95181a60$@gmail.com>, "Hartmut Kaiser"
<hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> All,
> 
> The review for the Lockfree library written by Tim Blechman started July
> 18th 2011 and ended on July 28th. I counted 8 votes, none of which were NO.
> All authors votes YES, some made additional requests. Overall, the verdict
> of the community was clear:
> 
>     Tim Blechmann's Lockfree library is ACCEPTED
> 
> The discussion was lively and it touched on several points.
> 
> Design
> ------
> The design of the library is sound, the API is usable. Except for naming
> issues (discussed below) almost no comments have been made on how to change
> it. 
> 
> People reviewing the library would like to see a more modular approach to
> lockfree data structures in general, possibly by exposing building blocks or
> by utilizing policies. The general interest was to have a more diverse set
> of data structures available, such as a lock-free linked list or bounded and
> fixed-sized data structures.
> 
> Atomics Library
> ---------------
> As the initial review announcement stated, Lockfree depends on an external
> Atomics library, which has to be separately reviewed in order to get into
> Boost as a first class library. There has been some discussions whether
> Lockfree could be accepted without Atomics being reviewed. Others suggested
> Lockfree may be reviewed and added to Boost SVN only after Atomics got
> reviewed (this was mentioned in the review announcement as well).
> 
> After all those discussions and based on the wide interest Lockfree data
> structures have, I'd suggest to add the current Atomics library as an
> implementation detail to Lockfree. Special handling of compilers which
> already have implemented std::atomics would be good if added to Lockfree,
> though. 
> 
> Naming
> ------
> The consensus was that the naming of the reviewed data structures has to be
> changed. The names should be either fifo and lifo or queue and stack. AFAIK,
> Tim already addresses this point. 
> 
> Documentation
> -------------
> The consensus of almost everybody referring to the documentation was that it
> needs more work. Here is a short (but non-exhaustive) list of things being
> mentioned:
>  - It lacks rationale and information about the implementation
>  - The class synopsis of the data structures should be accessible from the
> "Reference" page. 
>  - Make non-thread-safe parts more explicit (fifo::empty is described as
> non-thread-safe)
>  - Document exception guarantees
>  - More information needed on internals, the design, and rationale
> 
> 
> I would like to thank all who participated in the discussions.
> 
> Regards Hartmut
> ---------------
> http://boost-spirit.com 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost 

Hartmut, just wanted to say thanks for managing the review.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to submit a review,
but I was following the review process with some interest.

Well done Tim, I look forward to trying out your library :-)
 
Cheers,
Ralf

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. 
The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, 
and is believed to be clean.