RE: RE: Re: Re:[boost] Re: Serialization Formal Review #2

From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-27 12:53:50

> > > The main problem I had was that certain member variable weren't
> > > accessible. The STL collections don't have that issue so 
> there was no 
> > > problem.
> 
> > Sorry if this is silly question, but why would you need an 
> access to 
> > the counter? IMO we should be able to save/load shared_ptr without 
> > need to save it.
> 
> I checked the code (which was written some time ago) and the 
> answer to that question isn't obvious to me.  I do remember 
> starting with the idea that it wouldn't be necessary to look 
> beyond shared_ptr but I had to just keep adding on to make 
> things work.  The implementation of shared_ptr is A LOT more 
> involved that one would guess.  
> 
> My implementation of shared_ptr implementation may not be the 
> only or best one.  It is pretty straight forward however in 
> that it follows the chain of composition - which includes 
> shared_count.  
> 
> Sorry I can't give a better answer.
> 
> Robert Ramey

There is another counter to direct  counter using (I just think out loud -
it may be that you ok): what if I do not save all of the shared_ptr to the
same object? What will happened once they will get restored? Wouldn't it
cause memory leak? 

I do realize that any other solution would be more complicated, but I think
we should go for it.

Gennadiy.