* Andrew Stitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/04/08 12:49]: > 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.
I was using sys/boost as a generic base for making the port(s), not necessarily as a replacement to native or posix implementations. I included the boost mutex stuff from Steve's windows port, and did time, socket, and asyncIO/Poller also from boost lib. It's a quick and easy way for me to get a cross compilable, portable qpidclient, and I figured if/when boost components make it to libstdc++ it'll be a bonus. That aside, I tend agree with Alan, if it's as fast as the native implementations, it seems like it would be easier to just have one version, but that's up to you guys :) In my application performance isn't key for the client side, I just need to have it working in Windows and OSX. Steve: I made an account on github, and when I get this all working I'll talk to you about making a branch on there to throw changes up (hope to be done by the end of the weekend if time allows). As I said, I used a few of the files from your windows port, so having both versions up there should be easier to keep any changes synced.
