Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-11 19:47:13


Hi Andrew,

>> However, being from the old school, [...]
>
> So why are you proposing a Boost library? :-)

Good point! Maybe because I felt old-school resources (IPC, shared
memory, etc...) are not present in Boost ;-)

>> I don't
>> like much the mandatory use of shared_ptr in the interface (so that
>> mapped_file must be allocated only via new).
>
> That's not true! You can take a shared_ptr to a static or auto object
> by using a custom deleter. This approach doesn't provide any safety in
> this case (since mmaped_region doesn't manage the lifetime of
> mmaped_file), but it works at least.

Right.

>> file_mappings could have
>> also ordering operators so that we can store them in containers.
>
> Yes. The application that I had in mind was an application-controlled
> buffer cache, so the ability to store them in containers is certainly
> a useful feature there.

The buffer cache is definitely a good tool to design. Don't forget two
present it to a Boost review!

> Yes. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that this is
> the better approach, with mmaped_file perhaps being a convenience wrapper
> built on top of the other two classes.

Yes, that would be easy.

> In addition, while designing these classes, it may turn out that a more
> general memory mapped file library is warranted.
>
> So in summary: We (I include myself) should work on supporting this
> functionality, but it's not a barrier to accepting Shmem into Boost.

Thanks. I think that multi-mapping functionality has many possibilities,
so is definitely a good project.

Cheers,

Ion


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk