Re: [Boost-users] boost signals2 review

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost signals2 review
From: raindog_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-11-13 21:58:22

Of course few people will volunteer to slow down thei code by adopting a new library that less than ideally solves their already solved usage scenarios.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:46:18 
To: <boost-users_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost signals2 review


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stjepan Rajko" <stjepan.rajko_at_[hidden]>
To: "boost users" <boost-users_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc: "Andrew Webber" <andy_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost signals2 review


>
> Thank you, Andy, for the review.
>
> Stjepan
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Andrew Webber <andy_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>>
>> I think that the interface changes required to guarantee thread safety 
>> are
>> understandable.  I've seen some discussion on the mailing list about
>> retaining the trackable interface for backwards compatibility.  While I
>> understand the desire to keep the changes required by switching to 
>> signals2
>> to a minimum, I think signals2 provides a clean break.  I understand
>> boost::signals is going to be maintained for the time being.  This way, 
>> if
>> people don't want to change, they don't need to for the time being.  If 
>> they
>> want thread safe signals, they should switch to the new library, its new
>> techniques and its clean interface.

Do not forget that it is plaanned the library will replace Boost.Signal in 
the mid term.
So if there is no functional compatibility and performances for the single 
thread the replacemant will not be welcome for the current users.

Vicente 


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users_at_[hidden]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users