pps wrote:
>
> class Lock, BasicLock, and Locable are strange pieces of code in my
> point of view.
That's because you don't understand the motivation, which isn't
surprising because it hasn't been documented anywhere but the Wishlist yet.
> First of all, there's no need to have virtual methods for
> such simple class.
Yes, there is, because there will be an override someday.
> Locable has a really doubtful piece of code - it
> creates BasicLock using new!
Read up on the pImpl idiom. (Also called Handle-Body, and other
things.) BasicLock is the current implementation, but in v2.1, there
will be alternate implementations for platforms that support locks. I
anticipate a Boost::Threads based implementation at least, and possibly
others. And there still must be a BasicLock implementation for those
platforms that do not support Boost::Threads, or where the user doesn't
want to install it.
> isn't it's strange to change threading models at runtime?
The purpose of hiding the implementation behind a pointer is so we can
change that implementation without breaking the library's ABI, which
adding data to a plain Lockable base class would do.
> I think I never saw anything like this.
See Advanced C++ by James Coplien.
