Re: [boost] Re: [named_params] timing trivia and some comments

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 09:46:58

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Matthew Hurd" <matt_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>> Why would I want to do this?  I would like to use this approach as a
>> way for inserting an intermediary function.  Specifically, I would
>> like to call f<direct>(x,y) and have the direct representation
>> called or f<marshal, destination>(x,y) and have an intermediary
>> serialize the params into a block and send it off on a transport
>> where a representation along the lines of f<marshal, source>(x,y)
>> would accept the block in some infrastructure somewhere else.
>> f<queue_for_processing_in_a_thread_pool>(x,y) fits this model too.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
> I guess my first thought is: "Whaa???  What does any of the above have
> to do with a named parameters library?"
>
> And then I think: "OK, he wants something that mates the serialization
> library from Robert Ramey with the new tuples (fusion) from Joel de
> Guzman".

Conceptually, I think that he wants to serialize a boost::function<>. My
advice is "don't bother". I use shared_ptr<Command> for serializeable
polymorphic functions.

BTW, it is not necessary to serialize/marshal the function object in order
to pass it to a thread (pool), only IPC needs marshaling.