Changing threading semantics from init early to init before second thread

[Havoc Pennington]

Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> But on the other hand it's (to the best of my knowledge) robust,
> tested, existing code.
> 
> OK, if the threading needs of dbus are *really* trivial (just starting
> a thread?), maybe it's overkill, and just using the Microsoft C
> library's _beginthreadex() is enough.
> 

Doesn't even start threads - all we need is locks and cond variables.

Again, what I'm saying is there may essentially be zero code to write 
here. If there really is something nontrivial to write, then sure using 
a library makes sense.

I tend to think that sticking to the current setup is better than either 
requiring an extra dependency or maintaining our own sucked-in copy of a 
largish dependency, though - the whole idea here is to simplify things 
for developers.

Havoc