std.parallelism changes done

[Sönke Ludwig]

Am 25.03.2011 04:32, schrieb dsimcha:
> On 3/24/2011 10:31 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Well what can I say.. things can become more complex and you cannot
>> always say this is parallelism and this is concurrency ore something.
>> It's just nice when the libary does not get in the way when you are in a
>> situation where eg. throughput and responsiveness or whatever else
>> matter. Sometimes it can be a small change that can make or break the
>> deal.
>
> Agreed. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, and I'm certainly willing to
> make **small** changes even if they stretch the scope somewhat into
> general concurrency. It's just that I don't want to make big changes,
> especially if they will make the interface more complex, reduce
> efficiency and/or lock me into certain implementations. (For example,
> using a priority queue precludes supporting work stealing later without
> breaking the priority feature.)

I agree, the proirities are things that can be important in some cases 
but most of the time they are not really _necessary_ in that sense. And 
maybe in most of those cases where someone would like to have them, the 
suggestion by Michel to create a second thread pool with a different 
priority may be just fine.

The more important aspect was the OOB part with the cached threads for 
something like executeInNewThread. And even that is not a real deal-breaker.