I completely agree Alan. We have recently been doing something very similar internally in C++03 and the C++11 primitives are sourly missed. We have managed to not use std::function by having a certain number of hardcoded events which can be sent to a connection engine and using custom promises/futures to retrieve the result. Overall a lot of complexity is added by reimplementing features which are available in C++11.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: > I am working on a multi-threaded broker example for proton C++ and I am > becoming more and more convinced that it doesn't make much sense to try > to do this without C++11. > > There are two classes of issue: > > API: > - inject() needs a way to represent a callback function. Without > std::function this is very difficult. > - for memory-safe multi-threaded we will need to expose > shared_ptr/unique_ptr in the public API (the proton refcounting scheme > is not thread safe.) > > Implementation: initially the multi-threaded broker impl will be > independent of the single-threaded proton core but at some point we > will want to provide some thread-safe toolkit as part of the C++ API, > which internally needs atomics, mutexes etc. > > Originally we talked about keeping proton based on C++03. I'd like to > propose we maintain that for the single-threaded but use C++11 in > thread-safe and shared_ptr extensions. > > If someone wants to add a boost version of those extensions at some > point that would be fine by me, but I plan to work initially with > C++11. > > Thoughts? > Alan. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org > >
