Re: What's the connection between objects and threads?
On May 21, 10:19 pm, "Chris Thomasson" <cris...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Szabolcs Ferenczi" <szabolcs.feren...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f47e35cb-44b8-4072-bf8b-42f05c6dc4ea@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 8:08 pm, "Chris Thomasson" <cris...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
Why do you need to start threads in ctors? That can be dangerous. However,=
if your careful, it can be done. Here is a simple example:
<pseudo-code sketch>
______________________________________________________________
class thread_base {
virtual void on_entry() = 0;
public:
void start() { ... };
void join() { ... };
};
class active_object : public thread_base {
public:
active_object() {
// construct
}
private:
void on_entry() {
// running
}
virtual void on_object_state_shift() = 0;
};
template<typename T>
struct run {
T m_object;
run() { m_object.start(); }
~run() throw() { m_object.join(); }
};
class my_object : public active_object {
void on_object_state_shift() {
// whatever...
}
};
int main() {
{
run<my_object> mobj;
}
return 0;
}
Great. It looks good.
-- or --
int main() {
{
my_object mobj;
mobj.start();
mobj.join();
}
return 0;}
______________________________________________________________
This works fairly well because the run<T> template has nothing to do with
any active object state. It only ensures that the object has been fully
constructed __before__ the thread which drives it has been created...
Any thoughts?
So far so good. I still have to check it out but this is something I
was looking for. If we replace the term `run' with `active' or
something of a more meaningful term, we are done.
I think this construction could be considered by the committee of C+
+0x as well.
Well done.
Best Regards,
Szabolcs