-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 14 January 2009 08:06 am, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Eric Greveson wrote:
I've recently been doing some work that required thread-safe containers (queue, channel) and I found that in addition to these, a locking_ptr with similar semantics to boost::shared_ptr (except being thread-safe too)
shared_ptr is already thread-safe. Did you mean you perform a lock around the access to the wrapped pointer?
Why is it tied to shared ownership? This should be distinct things.
Yes, you could build a monitor based on a boost::optional model rather than a shared_ptr. I agree it seems better to provide the monitor functionality at a lower level, orthogonal to shared_ptr. That said, I too wrote a locking shared_ptr some time ago and as I recall the main reasons for going that way were: 1) Easy to support non-copyable types. At the time, I was probably not aware that boost::optional supported in-place factories, but in any case shared_ptr supports non-copyable types in a simpler way. 2) If two threads are both accessing the same object, they will often also want to share ownership of the object. I guess what I'd like to see in boost would be something like a boost::monitor<T> which would be like a boost::optional<T> plus monitor functionality, and maybe a boost::monitor_ptr<T> which would be a boost::shared_ptr<boost::monitor<T> > with some syntactic sugar. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJbffU5vihyNWuA4URAmQyAKDPrHhHo94YQQ5CT1uAFgMdlu1s6QCfee3O IFCrP2UXkt7SUBBxXXk9Sls= =9KVQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----