Faisal Vali | 4 Sep 16:47
Favicon

[interprocess] Just a note of thanks to the developers :)

I Have been working on some COM components in the windows environment that 
have required communication across processes.  The abstractions the 
interprocess library provides have greatly simplified my life (as have many 
of the other libs in boost, and i have been negligent in my thanks).
Thank you so much!

Faisal Vali, MD, MSc
Radiation Oncology
Loyola

p.s. If this is the incorrect forum for showing appreciation, I apologize 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Ion Gaztañaga | 4 Sep 20:19

Re: [interprocess] Just a note of thanks to the developers :)

Faisal Vali wrote:
> I Have been working on some COM components in the windows environment that 
> have required communication across processes.  The abstractions the 
> interprocess library provides have greatly simplified my life (as have many 
> of the other libs in boost, and i have been negligent in my thanks).
> Thank you so much!

Thank you for using Interprocess. Feel free to suggest any improvement

Regards,

Ion
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Faisal Vali | 5 Sep 00:46
Favicon

Re: [interprocess] Just a note of thanks to the developers:)


"Ion Gaztañaga" <igaztanaga <at> gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:48C026A8.7000208 <at> gmail.com...
> Thank you for using Interprocess. Feel free to suggest any improvement
>

Well, I was just wondering what was the reason for not including a 
recursive_named_upgradeable_mutex?
thanks,
-fas

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Ion Gaztañaga | 5 Sep 23:55

Re: [interprocess] Just a note of thanks to the developers:)

Faisal Vali wrote:
> 
> Well, I was just wondering what was the reason for not including a 
> recursive_named_upgradeable_mutex?

I just didn't see any use case for that. Is there any C++ 
synchronization library that offers this kind of mutex? Why do you need it?

> thanks,
> -fas

Regards,

Ion
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Faisal Vali | 6 Sep 18:57
Favicon

Re: [interprocess] Just a note of thanks to the developers:)


"Ion Gaztañaga" <igaztanaga <at> gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:48C1AACA.5090305 <at> gmail.com...
> Faisal Vali wrote:
>>
>> Well, I was just wondering what was the reason for not including a 
>> recursive_named_upgradeable_mutex?
>
> I just didn't see any use case for that. Is there any C++ synchronization 
> library that offers this kind of mutex? Why do you need it?
>

I had created wrapper functions for my containers that were synchronized 
using a named upgradeable mutex and lock guards, and ended up having to call 
one function from the other (which causes deadlock if an exclusive lock is 
got) - i thought a recursive lock would have allowed this (not sure the pros 
and cons of this approach).  But since there is no such mutex, i settled on 
a couple of solutions: one involved creating a scoped_lock appropriately if 
a bool param indicates a lock-recusrive call or not, the other uses 
templatized versions that use an mpl::if_c to create noop locks if the 
nontype bool param indicates to do so.

Please keep in mind that I am still learning about synchronization issues 
(and am light on the theory, so i might have missed a common pattern for 
solving this type of problem)
thanks,
-fas

(Continue reading)

Robert Jones | 4 Sep 21:07

Re: [interprocess] Just a note of thanks to the developers :)

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Faisal Vali <faisalv <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

> I Have been working on some COM components in the windows environment that
> have required communication across processes.  The abstractions the
> interprocess library provides have greatly simplified my life (as have many
> of the other libs in boost, and i have been negligent in my thanks).
> Thank you so much!
>
>
Well said! And not only that you get first class support too.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


Gmane