Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] to std:: or not to std::
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-24 13:00:24
On 12/24/2012 03:34 AM, Vicente Botet wrote:
> Michael Caisse-3 wrote
>> There seems to be a trend to migrate boost::thread to std::thread.
> Yes, this is my inention.
>> Will the next move be to remove interruption points? We have purposely
>> selected Boost.Thread on a few projects that are also using C++11
>> because we prefer the Boost.Thread behaviour and feature set.
>> The purpose of this email isn't to debate the merit of the Boost.Thread
>> feature set but instead to understand the future direction of the library.
>> Can Vicente or someone provide the intended road map or general plan for
>> the library?
> My intention is to provide an interface that conforms to the std thread
> library. And build on top of this whatever is needed to respond to the user
> I have tried to introduce the changes letting the users to migrate to the
> new interface/behavior (3 releases) but it seem sthis is not the way to
> introduce changes :(
> If these chages are not desired we can just set the default
> BOOST_THREAD_VERSION==2 and take the time to discuss of a better way to move
> to the direction I had in mind.
I appreciate very much that you have taken up maintenance of this
library. I have not been very involved in the ML this past year and
should have been paying closer attention.
My personal concern is that I don't want a std::thread library. I
already have that if I need it. I know this isn't the case for everyone
and I understand the value of having a boost::std_thread.
I know that some very smart people worked on std::thread, but I don't
agree with all of their choices and prefer the behaviour and features of
boost::thread in many cases. Perhaps defining BOOST_THREAD_VERSION is
all I need to do. It might have been nice to branch the library so we
have boost::thread and boost::std_thread... (just thinking out loud, I'm
not wanting to recommending an increase in maintenance headache).
Do you plan on removing extensions to std behaviour (such as
interruption points) or just making existing behaviour conform to std
when they differ?
Take care -
-- Michael Caisse ciere consulting ciere.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk