19 Jan 08:48
Re: Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)
vicente.botet <vicente.botet <at> wanadoo.fr>
2009-01-19 07:48:22 GMT
2009-01-19 07:48:22 GMT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Torp" <johan.torp <at> gmail.com> To: <boost <at> lists.boost.org> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009) > However, thread pools do not aim to provide good latency which might make a > such future implementation useless for scheduling related usage (which might > still be ok since it could be the best design option we have). I'd love to > hear the authors views on this. Could you develop the use case you have in mind. > Actually, I started writing a reply but I couldn't really understand your > implementation. I was hoping one of the authors would reply first and I > could join in later. To solve the complexity problem, I agree we need to > expose some stateful abstraction and can't do with just free functions. Replay to the post. Let me know what you don't understad. > If we choose require a third thread (or thread pool) for future composition, > I'm sure there are lots of nice interfaces like your proposal above. I don't > want to spend too much time designing these fancier features now though. Which other features would you want? > Vicente Botet Escriba wrote: >> >>> #1 Come up with a better wait_for_any mechanism (probably some kind of >>> future container, another idea is exposing the internal condition >>> variable) >> >> Are you requiring some kind of public registration on completion as used >> by the future_waiters? >> Anthony has sais that it could be something like that, but no concrete >> porposal for the the moment. >> > > At this point I'm not suggesting anything. I'd like the authors > acknowledgement that this is a problem first. Who knows, maybe they have > some insight which makes it a non-problem. I'd rather build consensus on > what the problems are first, then solve the problems. I understand > I would not be surprised if requiring a third thread for future composition > would render it useless for many of Gaskill's use cases, libpoet and asio - > which means most of the identified use cases. But I'm far from sure. Could you or someone develop these needs. Best, Vicente _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RSS Feed