Re [boost] Composites and Visitors

From: Dave Handley (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-23 05:53:21

Jason Hise wrote:

> I have no familiarity with these patterns, so my range of suggestions is
> fairly limited.  However, I did notice one way that you might be able to
> make the composite more generic.  Your composite library currently
> forces the client to set up the hierarchy with raw pointers.  Would it
> be reasonable to ask that it allow smart pointers as well?  It would
> seem that this would be as easy as making the template parameter the
> pointer type instead of the object type, as the plain object type
> doesn't (appear to) be used anywhere.

Thanks for the suggestion - I've actually been working on this, along with 
some
other memory management policies.  The smart pointer policy is relatively 
simple,
although not quite as easy as making the template parameter a pointer type 
since
I use new, delete and clone in the framework.  Nevertheless, I should be 
able to
get that policy up and running pretty quickly.  I was also trying to create 
a further
policy that used a single type and stored it by value rather than by pointer 
(like
normal STL containers) - unfortunately, the policy for that is proving much 
harder
than I originally thought.  I'l probably abandon my second idea and just 
publish
policies for smart_ptr and normal pointer versions of the code.

>  (btw, have you tried out my singleton longevity lifetime policy yet? ;) )

I've browsed the code, but unfortuantely, I've spent a week away on business 
so
haven't had a time to use it in anger yet, or study the code in any detail. 
My first
impression is that you have done a good job - but I'll get back later in the 
week
with a more detailed review.

Dave Handley