Re: [Boost-users] [dataflow.signals][thread_safe_signals] How to alter the Calling of chained signals

Stjepan Rajko wrote:

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Stjepan Rajko wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Manuel Jung wrote:

...

...

* The example is hard-wired to a void(int) signature. It wouldn't be hard to generalize, if there is interest.

I need to have it generalize. Would be great if you could do it, otherwise, i'll try at the weekend.

It just need slight tweaks in things that are already there. I might not find time until Sunday, but once I get to it it shouldn't take me long.

I have it generalized now. The only downside is that the signature has to be specified as a part of the make_async call (I renamed delay to async). We can remove that requirement for certain components in the future.

I have committed the changes to the sandbox (the example now also uses thread_safe_signals). I haven't tested it extensively, so there are probably problems to work out. If you run into any, please let me know.

Kind regards,

Stjepan

Hey, The current implementation does not cover priority or smart threadpools. I need to submit a priority type (for instance just an int) with the first submit and this value needs to be submit everytime make_async submits a new task. This priority value changes with every data submitted to the dataflow network. And it is very importend: You wont need possible breakpoints in your dataflow network (the make_async calls), if there is no priority system. (Well it would make sense if you split signals with "|" opeartor, so the rest of the dataflow could be parallelized..) II have antother thaught: The make_async filter is ok as interface, to split the dataflow. But i don't like that i loose control over the task object. If i have no task object, i am not able to interrupt that task. And interruptions of tasks would be very handy to make the program more stable. I could control the runtime of tasks and interrupt and kill them, if they didn't respond. Maybe this is out of the scope of dataflow.signals, but i think i would prefer an implementation of dataflow with futures, if that is possible. I think that would make the integration of the threadpool library much more natural. I'm not very familiar with futures yet, still learning, how to use them best. But i will think about this and let you know if i can think of a way to do it. I don't no how much i could contribute to your rewrite of the dataflow library, but altough it would be nice if you would keep me informed. At the moment i have relativly much free time, but by the time the new semester starts, my time will be much shorter. Kind Regards Manuel