[boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

From: Anthony Williams (anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-21 03:43:54

"Phil Nash" <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [Anthony Williams]
> > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to allocate some memory,
> and
> > you get an HGLOBAL back --- a handle to the memory. You need to call
> > GlobalLock with that handle to get a pointer to the memory which you can
> > actually use. The resource manager therefore needs to keep track of the
> > handle, rather than the pointer (which may be different after different
> calls
> > to GlobalLock, if there has been an intervening GlobalUnlock). Indeed, the
> > pointer to the locked memory is essentially a separate resource, acquired
> with
> > GlobalLock() and released with GlobalUnlock. It would be sensible to be
> able
> > to use the same framework for both the handle and the pointer.
> 
> This sounds like a perfect case where using a smart_PTR would be very
> confusing, maybe dangerously so!
> 
> Err.. but just to be sure, are you saying this in support of smart_resource?

Yes. My point was that even something "so simple" as memory can not always
sensibly be managed purely by a smart *pointer* --- you need a resource
manager for the handle.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd.
Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response.