Re: [Boost-Users] Re: thread_group behavior question

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-07 13:29:31

sdussin said:
> Thanx for the quick reply, William....
>
> As a followup, I need to be able to get around the blocking of the
> thread_group while waiting, so I'm thinking of creating a new group
> class which contains a thread_group and exposes a join_current method to
> join on the currently running set of threads only.
>
> This leads to a further question: If I'm running in a thread that was
> allocated as part of a thread_group (call it thread A) and I spawn a new
> thread (thread B) is the new thread (thread B) a member of the same
> thread_group as its parent (thread A) or is it not part of any thread
> group? (Assuming that I create the thread directly and not
> using thread_group.create_thread, of course :-))...

It's not part of any thread_group.  It sounds like you're coming from a
Java background?  The thread_group isn't quite the same here as the
ThreadGroup in Java.  I've contemplated whether or not we should have a
Java like thread_group semantic, but haven't really been swayed to it yet,
and have kept our thread_group very simplistic.  In fact, historically the
only reason for boost::thread_group is to make it more convenient to spawn
several threads in a loop and manage their lifetimes... and as such
there's even been discussion of whether or not this concept should do any
synchronization at all.

-- 
William E. Kempf
wekempf_at_[hidden]