Re: [boost] [thread] Do we need thread_group now?

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] Do we need thread_group now?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-14 14:16:55

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Le 14/04/12 01:12, Howard Hinnant a écrit :
>
>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>
>>     join_all(threads);
>>>
>> Is it worth the electrons to turn this into an algorithm?
>>
>>     std::for_each(threads.begin(), threads.end(),
>>                   [](thread&  t) {t.join();});
>>
>> or even simpler (really I think std::for_each is probably obsolete):
>>
>>     for (auto&  t : threads)
>>         t.join();
>>
>>
>>  Hi Howard,
>
> you are right for join_all and for c++11 compilers. But in order to make
> the code portable, join_all could help.
>
> In addition, Boost.Thread provides timed join functions and I suspect that
> joining N threads for a given duration is less evident and subject to error
> on the user side.
>
> template <typename TC, typename C, typename D>
> bool try_join_all_until(TC & cont, chrono::time_point<C,D> const& tp)
> {
>  for (auto& t : cont) {
>    if (! t.try_join_until(d, tp)) return false;
>  }
>  return true;
> }
>
> Or a better way to do it.
>
> template <typename TC, typename R, typename P>
> bool try_join_all_for(TC & cont, chrono::duration<R,P> const& d)
> {
>  chrono::steady_clock::time_**point tp = chrono::steady_clock::now()+d;
>  return try_join_all_until(cont, tp);
> }
>
> I don't know it adding these simple algorithms would be useful to the
> Boost community if thread_group is deprecated. I could live without them,
> my main concern is to deprecate thread_group.
>
> What do you and others think? Anthony?
>

If a boost::container::vector (or whatever) of boost::thread's (with a set
of algorithms as free functions, e.g., join_all) can function essentially
the same as boost::thread_group, then I think that makes sense.

- Jeff