From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-06-22 09:43:46
--- In boost_at_y..., "Reich, Shalom" <Shalom.Reich_at_g...> wrote:
> > From: williamkempf_at_h... [mailto:williamkempf_at_h...]
>
> > > But it is also not unknown to create a fixed size pool of Thread
> > > objects, and then start them later on demand.
> >
> > I'm curious as to why. This just doesn't seem like the best
solution
> > to any problem.
> >
>
> Eliminate the overhead of thread creation and destruction. The
usual
> approach is to start the threads in the pool and pass the "Command"
> objects. The thread then invokes the run() or execute() on the
Command.
This is not the same argument being made. I fully understand the
need for thread pools, but threads in a thread pool are not created
in a two phase construction pattern. Greg was describing a pattern
in which thread objects (as opposed to threads) were created enmasse
and later "started".
Bill Kempf