Re: [boost] [review] Formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library - extended until sunday (on Behalf of Detlef Wilkening)

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-23 19:41:06

Hello John Torjo,

I don't know where to send my review of Boost.Factory library - 
therefore i send it to you. I hope, that until my next review i know it 
better, but today i must answer before the time to review has gone.

 > * What is your evaluation of the design?
 > * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
 >
I like, that the lib has direct support for smart pointer, because this 
is a normal technic in C++.

But i often has the problem of a 2 phase initialisation. I don't like 
it, but i found it very often in practice. After the constructor for 
example i must call an init function. Or sometimes i must do things 
which are not possible in a constructor. I would like, if the factory 
would support such mechanism.

I would like a third (or better an second template argument, and the 
allocator become the third argument), which is a policy class for the 
two phase construction. After the new the factory call a static function 
in the policy class. Default policy is a class which does nothing. But 
here I can write a class, which calls e.g. a init function or other things.

Second I would like a name like factory_ptr or factory_pointer more than 
only factory for the class. It shows more whats the problem domain of 
the factory, and stands more in parallel to factory_value.

 > * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
 >
I would like a better motivation. I have discuss the lib with a friend 
to understand why I need such a lib. I think, not everybody (I include) 
has a deep understanding of modern C++ technics, and therefore a better 
motivation with two more detailed examples would help the beginners.

 > * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
 >
I think, the lib addresses a seldom problem. That's why I need some time 
to understand the motivation. Perhaps it is a normal problem if the user 
has more knowlegde about all STL and Boost libs.

But I love it, if there is a "standard" way of doing things, because it 
makes the code more readable. Therefore I like small libs for not often 
problems too. I could solve the problem every time with some small 
functions without a lib, but with the lib I don't need this small code, 
and my code becomes more readable.

 > * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
 >   Did you have any problems?
 >
I have make some little examples and compiles them with the Microsoft 
Visual Studio 2003 (MSV 7.1) without any problems.

 > * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
 >   A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
 > * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
 >
I have taken 2 hours to read the documentation, to study the header and 
the implemenation and to play with some examples.

 > And finally, every review should answer this question:
 >
 > * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
 >
Yes. I think the library should accepted to Boost, but with the three 
discussed extensions:
- Better name for factory: factory_ptr or factory_pointer.
- Better motivation for beginners in the docu.
- Extension with a third template parameter for e.g. 2 phase construcion.

Greetings

Detlef Wilkening

-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
... call me only if you want things done right