From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-14 14:36:31
--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 11:06 AM 1/14/2002, rogeeff wrote:
> >Ideally Storage Policy manages HOW to allocate/deallocate
> >while Ownership policy manages WHEN to do so.
> >If we will stick to this definition, we will never need to
> >interpolicy (Storage-Ownership at least) communication.
> They need some communication, although it may be indirect via the
> class. Thus OwnershipPolicy::Release() tells the framework (via
> return) that StoragePolicy::Destroy() should be called.
> While StoragePolicy and OwnershipPolicy are mostly independent and
> orthogonal, it isn't quite 100%.
That's obvious, since they manage the same event. Most of the
policies that compose a compound component will "comunicate" though
that component. Let's say that policies are communicating iff policy
A implementation uses members of Policy B or vice versa, cause namely
presence/absence of such 'direct' communication is one of the most
important issues discussed.
Do you agree with me that if we manage to define Ownership and Strage
policies in above terms we should be able to eliminate direct
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk