[boost] Re: auto_ptr "generic ancestor" idea

From: Knut-Håvard Aksnes (knut_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-29 04:42:27

Ian Bruntlett writes:
 > Kevin,
 > 
 > > And this means....... How exactly is auto_ptr not sufficient.  I really
 > > don't know what you are trying to do.  What are your existing practices.
 > 
 > Well, I don't think auto_ptr<> would be suitable for use when dealing with,
 > say O.S. handles.
 > 
 > I think that to use auto_ptr<> with an O.S. handle I'd have to write a guard
 > class for every kind of O.S. handle.
 > 
 > It would only be a matter of time before individual guard classes started
 > having different interfaces and quirks.
 > 
 > If I use auto_resource<>, I'd only have to implement two member functions,
 > reset() and release(). The class interface would be consistent - as long as
 > reset() and release() were implemented correctly.
 > 

An example from   my  current project could   illuminate  this. (Using
CORBA)

In one of my methods  I need to create a  temporary CORBA object. This
object must be  released at exit by  invoking one  of its methods.  In
this   case a  scoped_ptr  like behavior   is   of interest, in  other
situations  such remote resources  could   be pooled by several  local
objects, in   such  situations a shared_ptr   like behavior  is what's
needed.