qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject RE: c++ client - Windows port
Date Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:49:27 GMT

On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:18 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > * Alan Conway <aconway@redhat.com> [09/04/08 07:51]:
> > > So my suggestion: if boost::time solves your problem on 
> > > windows then do
> > > a new sys/boost/Time.cpp impl using boost::time, so no 
> > > impact on other code.
> 
> That's essentially the path I've taken... But the first time a timed
> condition wait was tried, boost threw an out-of-range time exception.
> 
> The Windows Mutex, Condition, etc. are boost-based. So I guess it
> could be moved to sys/boost.

At this point I think the pthreads code is well tested and is very
portable to many platforms - I would be against replacing it with a
boost implementation. Especially as on these same platforms the boost
implementation will just sit on top of the pthreads implementation
anyway (in most cases).

Also pthreads is well documented (in books even), and boost is still
subject to change. If these things make it into the C++ standard lib as
has been threatened then I'll argue strongly to use that, but I don't
see any value in changing from pthread to boost for those platforms that
are sufficiently posix.

> 
> > That's been working well for me.  I've been playing around 
> > with making a boost
> > "port" in sys/boost since I'll eventually need an OSX client 
> > too and I figured
> > it was easiest to let boost handle as much of the native code 
> > as possible.

If I'm not mistaken OSX, being unix essentially, will already have
pthreads.


Andrew



Mime
View raw message