From: Russell Hind (rhind_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 06:44:49
Stefan Slapeta wrote:
> - IMO, it's not a 'little fish' to change the runtime libraries of all
> projects that use Boost.Thread. This and the necessity to ship an
> additional boost.thread dll is, at least for me and our company, at the
> moment an absolute showstopper for moving to a future release of boost!
> It is not easy to explain the costs for deploying the shared runtime
> library on some thousand machines.
> Personally, I'm very disappointed as it seems to be possible in boost,
> that a whole library becomes unusable for me in a future release. [Not
> the best example of backward compatibility!]
>
Well it isn't boosts' fault. It is a limitation in the way win32
handles thread cleanup and stuff and currently there isn't a work-around
for it. I suggest bug reports to Microsoft rather than having a go at
the volunteer boost developers.
> - There is NO WORD about that in the whole documentation. If there is
> one, you hid it very well! What is even worse: there is no word about
> ANY CHANGES in boost thread in the release notes!
>
Ok, this I agree with. There was no mention of this in the changes for
1.30.x and there probably should have been, but it is fairly obvious the
first time you build boost::thread from 1.30.x that it isn't there, so
stick with 1.29.0 until you are at a stage where distributing shared
runtimes might be possible. We can't blame boost developers for
limitations in the windows OS itself.
Cheers
Russell