Mark Deric wrote:
If we're going to manage processes; we ought to advantage ourselves by knowing whether the process is foreign (as in Julio's VC example) or one that is in our framework. One might say that this is mixing metaphors,
I personally beleive this is a not a good goal. For one, to the lesser extent Boost resembles a framework, the better Boost will integrate with the world in general. More importantly, it shouldn't matter whether a process is a Boost process or not. A process represents a set of useful interfaces: IO streams, synchronization party, IPC peer, virtual memory access, etc. If it is useful for a process to present something Boost-specific in its inter-process interface, then let it; but this is only a facet of the whole interface of the process, and does not make the process suddenly somehow become intrinsicly a "Boost process." Please do not make the "framework" mistake. Aaron W. LaFramboise