Re: [boost] Re: Object Factory

From: Anthony Liguori (anthony_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-21 20:12:26

Peter Dimov wrote:

>template<class T> struct constructor
>{
>    template<class A1> T * operator()(A1 const & a1)
>    {
>        return new T(a1);
>    }
>};
>
>FactoryA b = constructor<B>();
>
Didn't even think to exploit the fact that function<B *(int)> is 
assignable to function<A *(int)> :)

I only have one problem with this approach.  The fact that one can do:

constructor<B> b;
constructor<A> a;

std::auto_ptr<B>(b()); // this will be quite valid

function<A *(int)> f = b; // this will also be valid

// yet
a = b; // is not valid

The easiest way to fix this is to entirely avoid the type argument and 
make constructor a function that returns a function object.

I also went ahead and changed the template parameter to take a function 
type so that different constructors can be used.  The syntax is now:

// Store a functor for B::B(int, int) in f
boost::function<A *(int, int)> f = boost::constructor<B *(int, int)>();
std::auto_ptr<A>(f(10, 15)); // returns static_cast<A *>(new B(10, 15));

I'm in the process of getting clearance from employer to release this 
stuff so I should have it all up on my site within a few days...  I'm 
writing a metaclass library and this will be the virtual constructor 
portion.

>>FactoryA c;
>>
>>A *a = b(10); // Returns new B(10)
>>c = b;
>>delete a;
>>a = c(15); // Returns new B(10)
>>    
>>
>
>;-)
>
>Change 'T*' to auto_ptr<T> or shared_ptr<T> according to taste.
>
I see now that I should be quite careful what quick code samples I send 
out to the list ;-)

Regards,
Anthony Liguori