Re: [boost] [flyweight] Review period extended to February 3

From: Kevin Sopp (baraclese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-03 17:42:26

I vote for flyweight to be accepted into boost.

Earlier this week I have tried to plug a flyweight<string> type into
Boost.Wave but failed at doing so for reasons related to Boost.Wave or
my inexperience with Boost.Wave. So this review is based on a look at
its implementation and a longer look at its documentation. I am
knowledgable about the domain as I have implemented my own flyweight
type which was only customizable in respect to the parameters for the
hash container and which used a refcount tracking.

First of all I don't mind the name factory but I would prefer flyweight_pool.

I think the design is very good and the amount of work that Joaquin
has done for a seemingly simple library is amazing.

The documentation is very detailed minus some minor spelling errors.
It could use a better example in the Introduction with a custom object
and a custom hash function. Because 'how do I use boost.hash again'
was the question in my head.

As was already mentioned, a way to get usage statistics about the
flyweights would be nice.

Kevin