Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.5 released
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-21 19:21:55

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:36:38 +0200, Roland Bock <rbock_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]
>> Something like (assuming the design I suggested and assuming the cleanup
>> would be optional- would it be?):
>> child_process cp( cmd_line("test --foo /bar"), auto_cleanup() );
>> The work would then be done in the constructor with posix
>> implementation,
>> in destructor in windows.
> Calling the signal function in the constructor might be a bit strange
> since it sets the signal handler for SIGCHLD in general, not just for
> this specific child process. That's why I suggested a method that sets

Yes, Roland highlights a problem with signals. As signal handlers are set
globally in an application, libraries can't assume they can do what they
want. So I rather let the application developer handle signals explicitly
- he is the only one who can do it right. It's a pity as that means you
have to deal with a platform-specific concept (and maybe even code). But
then I personally think it's not a big problem. It's just a matter of fact
that platforms can be unfortunately very different.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at