Re: [Threads-devel] Threading features

Subject: Re: [Threads-devel] Threading features
From: Anthony Williams (anthony_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-08 16:29:04

At Thu 08 Jan 2009 21:18:47 UTC, mlimber <mlimber_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Anthony Williams
> <anthony_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> At Thu 08 Jan 2009 20:53:47 UTC, mlimber <mlimber_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> First, I'm wondering why the UpgradeLockable concept (and hence its
>>> associated locks) doesn't support timed locking like SharedLockable
>>> does. And if it's not unfeasible for some reason, is there a plan to
>>> add this?
>>
>> Timed locks are a real pain. It's probably feasible, but I don't feel the
>> need to do it myself, as I wouldn't ever use it.
>
> Is the pain you speak of mainly a manpower issue (not enough time in
> the day to do everything), or is there significant technical
> innovation that would need to occur to make it happen, or both or
> neither?

Timed locks complicate the implementation quite a lot. It is hard  
enough getting the implementation right without them. I'm sure it's  
not an insurmountable problem, but I don't have the time to spend  
doing it when I wouldn't feel the benefit.

If someone else has the time to take on the technical challenge, I'd  
be happy to review the result.

> Yeah, I see that it was poo-pooed previously because there were bigger
> fish to fry. Is that still the case? Is there any interest in adding
> such a component?

I wouldn't use it. Others may be interested.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams
Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Just Software Solutions Ltd, Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK