From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-16 03:06:37
thanks for your very positive review.
Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> John Torjo wrote:
>> Today starts the formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Utility/Singleton
>> What to include in Review Comments
>> Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
>> * What is your evaluation of the design?
> Very strong. I like it!
> I've implemented CRTP Singleton templates a few times before --
> highlighting the need for a Boost library. ;-) I'm pleased with the
> deluxe functionality:
>> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> Very clear, though not entirely complete, as described below. The
> organization and style is excellent, and when polished, this
> documentation will be exemplary. I like the examples. Pointing out the
> ability to bind() instance and/or lease, and the semantics of each, is
> great. Also the multiple-inheritance example to graft Singleton behavior
> onto an existing class.
> I didn't fully understand the thrust of the example described as: "We
> might as well have a static facility use the Singleton internally, by
> using non-public inheritance". A few more words about that example would
> be useful; maybe a bit of the implementation of static void message().
I might have kept it so brief since I'm not too sure it's good practice.
I think I'll better just remove it.
> It appears that the third template parameter SubsystemTag was a
> recent introduction. The documentation (especially the reference
> material) doesn't describe it enough, and often fails to mention it
> The first paragraph under
> seems to want to be a bullet list that got flowed instead.
> Very little is said about BOOST_SINGLETON_PLACEMENT and
> BOOST_SINGLETON_PLACEMENT_DECLARATION. The reference material mentions
> them without any explanation.
That "Singletons and dynamic libraries" section explains their purpose.
What exactly is missing?
I'm not too fond of specifying what those macros expand to and I don't
really want to mention them in the introductory section either, as for
me they are kind-of workarounds for the imperfect ABIs we have to deal
> The example
> appears to be inconsistent: shouldn't mylib_tag and library_tag be the
> same, one way or the other?
They should. My head must had been on vacation revising the docs.
> Also, that example combines three different
> mechanisms: BOOST_SINGLETON_PLACEMENT, destroy_singletons() and
> SubsystemTag. More explanation of the role of each (why are we using
> that mechanism here?), and how they interact -- or remain orthogonal --
> would clarify.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk