On 22 February 2013 21:31, Corentin Jabot <[email protected]> wrote: > Here again, two different issues. > 1/ can we use the c++11 <functional> features and variadic templates > for the biding part. > 2/ should we use the c++11 thread api somehow ( that looks like a huge > - unnecessary ? - change )
I don't think there's a need to change Qt's underlying threading system (yet?). Pthreads and Win32 threads do the job fine. <snip> > I was actually wondering if QtConcurrent couldn't be upgraded/recycled > * adding QtConcurrent::runFunctionInNewThread(function, ...) > * adding QtConcurrent::runFunctionInThreadPool(QThreadPool* p, > function, ... ) > * adding QtConcurrent::runFunctionInGlobalThreadPoool(function, ...); > * deprecating QtConcurrent::run and make it an alias of > QtConcurrent::runInGlobalThreadPoool We decided to halt development of QtConcurrent, and only keep it for compatibility purposes (see comments in https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,39375) How do you propose we run QRunnable in a non-threadpool thread? > This way, QThread keeps its current purpose of exclusively handling thread. > > (Or we could add another class or namespace, like QAsynchronous, > reusing QtConcurrent would meant keeping c++03 compat and its suppose > we will still return QFuture) Or a low-level QtGlobal function? qAsyncRun(func, args...) > About returning QThread* : what about the function return value ? That > should be accessible, easily. > It's one of the reason I prefer QFuture over QThread* Yes, that's the weakness of QThread*. We have some mutually exclusive features at the moment; we'll have to decide which one we want more: - Easy signalling (QThread) - Ability to postpone start (QThread) - Easy return value retrieval (QFuture) Regards, Sze-Howe _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
