Re: [boost] Re: Any interest in a generic pluggable factory class?

From: Rob & Lori (Rob.Lori_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-30 13:17:47

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

>"Rob & Lori" <Rob.Lori_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>news:3F4E81BA.1040902_at_buckeye-express.com...
>  
>
>>For those of you who are unfamiliar with pluggable factories, I suggest
>>reading the following C++ Report article:
>>http://www.adtmag.com/joop/crarticle.asp?ID=1520
>>    
>>
>
>I have generic implementation of plugable factory in vault area for about 2
>years now (IMO it better than one presented in acticle).
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/pluggable_factory/
>
>Gennadiy.
>
>  
>
Gennadiy, I took a look at your implementation and I like it.  The 
policy based design is a rather good idea!  However, your implementation 
is similar to most others in that the programmer is required to create 
Maker classes for all types of classes they wish to use with the 
PluggableFactory.

In my implementation no new classes will ever need to be created nor any 
modified to use the PluggableFactory.  You can register ANY class simply 
by executing one line of code.  The same thing for unregistering or 
creating instances of those registered classes.

There are of course a few other differences as well which I'm not going 
to list.

Rob Geiman