From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-27 14:59:52
--- In boost_at_y..., Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_l...> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 williamkempf_at_h... wrote:
> willia> This illustrates one of the big reasons why I'm not sure I
care for a
> willia> generative design for Boost.Threads. Acquisition
scheduling is
> willia> nearly always going to be defined by the underlying
implementation,
> willia> so exposing an interface to specify this is misleading at
best.
> willia> You're not going to be able to specify this in a portable
manner. I
> willia> designed the semantics of the Boost.Threads mutex types
very
> willia> carefully, taking factors like this into account.
>
> But why punish those platforms that do support acquisition
scheduling? It
> seems to me that it is acceptable for Boost.Threads to support more
things
> on some platforms and less on others. We just have to carefully
document
> what is supported where, so users can know what kind of portability
to
> expect.
No one's being "punished". The interface is simple and can be used
for implementation of platform specific types. IMHO this is a better
approach than having a portable library provide non-portable types.
Bill Kempf