Re: [Boost-users] [signals] thread-safe post-disconnect() cleanup

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-23 19:01:16

Timmo Stange wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>
>> Such an approach may turn out to not be acceptable, though, given
>> that the majority of signal benchmarks place heavy emphasis on
>> operator() calls.
>
> I sense some bitterness there ;).

No, not really. I have no horse in this race. I take the benchmarks at face 
value; they indicate that there is obviously interest in an implementation 
with a fast operator().

I was never particularly fond of providing dual components with thread-safe 
and "thread-unsafe" interfaces (for the various definitions of that.) The 
ideal scenario, in my mind, is to provide a single component that is still 
as overhead-free as possible in the single-threaded scenario. Unfortunately, 
the straightforward approach of copying a vector<shared_ptr> doesn't achieve 
that goal, but I _think_ that it's possible to implement the same interface 
in a more efficient way, using copy on write and versioning tricks. Maybe 
Frank's implementation already does this.