Subject: Re: [boost] [Fibers] Performance
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-16 08:44:09
2014/1/16 Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]>
>
> > > I still don't get it. There is no API stability question. The API is
> > > well defined for over 2 years now in the C++11 Standard (and even
> > > longer in Boost.Thread).
> >
> > I could have choosen a different API for fibers - but I think the
> > developers are more familiar with std::thread/boost::thread API.
>
> But you have not (and for a good reason!). So this argument is moot.
>
what I tried to tell is, that I the boost community could comme to the
conclusion that the
choosen API (thread-API or any another) is not appropriate for the suggested
semantics.
as the review figured out is that the thread-API would be accepted by the
reviewers -
and that's what I was referring with 'stable API for boost.fiber'.
> The only benefit you're getting from using fibers for this (and you could
> achieve the same semantics using plain ol'threads as well, Boost.Asio is
> doing it for years after all) is - now guess - performance. So please make
> up your mind. Are you trying to improve performance or what?
>
As I wrote before - with thread you would have to scatter your code with
callbacks.
With fibers you don't - you could write the code as it would by synchronous
operations.
That makes the code easier to read and understandable.