From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-30 22:15:14
E. Gladyshev wrote:
> --- Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > E. Gladyshev wrote:
> > > > * Consider parametrization, especialy if your library is to be
> > > > for embedded or non-traditional (like DSP, etc.) platfroms.
> > >
> > > I think this item will make you think twice before hiding
> > > boost::signal's allocator.
> > An allocator parameter is not the only way to parameterize, here, nor it
> > necessarily the most appropriate one. If I wanted to manage how
> > function/signals allocate their memory, I wouldn't want to do it on a
> > per-object basis - which, without the typedef templates, is pretty much
> > only level the allocator template parameter would allow me to manage it
> > At least for these two libraries, a per-project parameterization seems
> > appropriate to the real needs, and something as simple as a trait class
> > could provide the means.
> Right. When we say "consider parametrization", it doesn't necessarily mean
> a template parameter. Perhaps we should be more specific about it.
> I agree about trait/policy classes.
> Just for a note different trait classes could be used in one project
> I think that it is not really a per-project parameterization (if you
> need a per-project parameterization, you could as well overload
> global new/delete).
I meant per-project parameterization of 'function'/'signal' allocation
strategy, not of every memory allocation in the system.
> In many cases, you do want to have different memory management
> strategies in one project depending on the execution context
> and/or data type. Trait classes don't always prevent it.
Sure. My main point was that in the particular case you've cited an
allocator parameter won't even cover what I consider to be the most
realistic use case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk