Bennett, Patrick schrieb:
Honestly, I'd suggest you just use ACE for threading/synchronization primitives. It's available for a large number of platforms and is heavily used and frequently updated. I like Boost a lot, but I think some people are trying to make Boost more than (IMO) it should be. People discussing efficient io dispatch techniques for example would be better served to just use ACE, which already does many of these things extremely well. (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html)
Just my (possibly unwanted) $.02.
Not unwanted, but critizeable. I honestly think, that boost is the right place for a Thread Library, because platform independent interfaces for concurrent programming are one of the most interesting features and many people ask for its inclusion in the C++ standard. We do use the current Boost Thread library already (although some important features are missing) and a successfull crossplatform implementation via boost would proof the committee that it is realizable. I know, that this job is very hard due to the problem area itself as well as due to unresolved questions which interface would do the right thing. I was so glad, when I heard during the last ACCU in Oxford the talk of Kevlin Henney concerning an alternative ansatz for such a thread library and one of my biggest hopes was, that there could be positive interferences between the current boost interface and that of Kevlin. I also asked in this news group for such a possibibility, but got no answer. Finally I want to congratulate William Kempf and all the other boost participants for their work in the current Thread library (and the rest of boost of course) and I hope that it will evolve further on! Just my 0.02 EURO. Daniel