Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christopher Kohlhoff (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-30 20:47:58

Hi Felipe,

--- Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Yes, I tried this. IMO it *almost* works ok. Because it
> obligates me to have a class that lives throughout all the
> connection, what I would like to have is lots of handlers, one
> after the other, and each one take care of the connection and
> connections resources lifetimes. Although, thinking a little
> bit now, probably having one class that lives throughout all
> the connection would improve performance if it would be
> possible to have flexibility modifying the handler's order.
> How do you take care about this flexibility?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by handler order here. Can you
give an example?

> I think it would be the better way... sockets having auto_ptr
> semantics, but without the dynamic allocation.

Yep, although I think moving (i.e. creation of a temporary
equivalent to auto_ptr_ref) should be explicit, rather than
implicit like auto_ptr.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at