Re: [boost] [interprocess, aka shmem] Some proposals for open issues from the review

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-25 19:08:43

> Removing "_services" seems to be descriptive enough from my POV:
> 
> boost::interprocess::shared_memory
> boost::interprocess::mapped_file
> boost::interprocess::heap_memory
> boost::interprocess::external_memory
> 
> Do you really need to have it mean something more by adding a suffix?

The problem is that shared_memory and mapped_file already exist and 
those classes just create a shared memory segment and a mapped file 
(operating system wrappers just like a mutex). I'm talking about classes 
that above those they offer dynamic allocation and named object 
allocation in shared memory and memory-mapped files. "Services" may not 
be a correct name but I don't know how to express the functionality of 
those classes.

Ion