"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
I think you're going contrary to the basic threading assumption in the C++. If I explicitly use the same object from two different threads, I must use locking myself.
This is what I disagree with. I don't any problem with multiple threads accessing the same data structures as long as the accesses are read-only and the structures are not being modified.
Yes, that's the part that Vladimir left out. Of course if there's no modification then no locking is needed.
If, for all appearence, I don't use the same object in two threads, but there's some *internal* shared data structure, it should be protected *internally*. In this case, there's some internal serialization table that I know nothing about, so it should be protected by serialization library.
Repeat, I don't think this is necessary.
Why not? Is there no mutation at all?
OK - lets hear it from someone who is going to say the really need to be able to create multiple different simultaneaous serializations.
All I can say is that serialization and concurrency are natural partners, since serializing/deserializing is commonly used for interprocess communication. Whether it will apply to threads, I can't say. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com