Subject: Re: [boost] Asynchronous library now in Boost Library Incubator
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-06 09:48:26
> >>> Yes, I suppose that the whole application would be a single thread
> >> using that analogy. Objects are not 'bound' to a particular thread,
> >> can be accessed freely from any thread and the user is responsible for
> >> protecting them - or preferably writing functional-like code to avoid
> >> collisions etc.
> > HPX uses executors to fine-control where which task is executed. Every
> > function which (potentially) creates a new task can optionally be used
> > an instance of an executor (async(), future::then(), etc.)
> Are we reviewing HPX? Sorry Hartmut if I gave the impression of
> comparing Asynchronous to HPX.
I was not under the impression that this was a formal review of Boost.Async.
I rather was trying to understand the specifics of Boost.Async and therefor
I was comparing it to something I know ;)
> IIUC it is a library written by a private
> company and not intended for boost inclusion.
Just to rectify this: HPX is not a product of a private company. It's just a
large open source project distributed under the Boost license with many
(very capable) people contributing, which because of its scale and the
produced code quality might have created your impression of it having a
The reason why it's not considered for Boost inclusion is simple. Nobody has
stepped forward to make that happen. We'd be happy to support anybody
interested in pushing such an avenue.
> I mostly care about
> std::async and the proposed Standard extensions for futures. I'm not the
> one who brought HPX to discussion.
That was John B. IIRC, he was asking why you have decided to create your own
library instead of joining forces by contributing to HPX based on his
impression that Boost.Async provides services very similar to HPX.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk