Re: [boost] Re: resource manager naming

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-28 11:16:56

Alisdair Meredith <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Peter Dimov wrote:
>
>
>> It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB
>> way, resource<> is definitely a contender:
>
> This is definitely the direction I was thinking.  Otherwise, we get
> shared_resource, scoped_resource, movable_resource, etc and we start
> wanting an abbreviation like _ptr <g>  [or in this case, _rsrc?]
>
> I certainly like the policy approach here, as I see a policy-based smart
> pointer and a policy-based resource-manager sharing ownership policies. 
> I still see them as different but related concepts though.

I just want to point out, before I leave this conversation, that it
hasn't been demonstrated that a useful design for a generalized
resource manager is even possible, so worrying about names might be a
way to avoid dealing with the issue of clarifying what it is/does and
how it works ;-)

-Dave "Bicycle Shed" Abrahams

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com