Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.5 released
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-22 09:02:08
I think a first thing would be to decide if child have to stay an id value
instead of the representation of the child process.
At the moment, the current proposition is a bit unclear on this point. I
see two solutions:
1. change the name of child. Basically, boost::process::child appears to
me as the representation of a child process.
If it was child_id, then I wouldn't have made the suggestions I made
2. make it a real representation of the child process (as suggested
before) with RAII and calling automatically the wait function on
destruction if not explicitely detached.
This is more work obviously and different design than the current
proposal but at least it would impact only the child type.
Once decided it is easier to see how to setup a solution to avoid macros
for 95% of users in cross-platform context.
Again I'm not a specialist in the domain... I'll be able to find time to
learn more about POSIX in the coming days.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk