From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-18 09:21:49
thanks for your comment. I'll take this one as a motivation to express
my general views on the issue:
After eagerly defending the design, I begin realizing that not all the
critique is naysayerism ;-).
While I still think that the design is quite innovative and partially
sound, it has severe inconsistencies:
1. 'mutexed_singleton's need for a generic context (IOW, no type to code
against, except for 'lease' having unsuitable semantics),
2. inconsistent semantics of 'lease' classes of 'mutexed_singleton' and
'singleton' (with manually implemented synchronization).
... (several other issues raised during the review)
I think that separation of concerns might solve the problems, however,
it seems to me that I won't have enough spare time in one piece for it
anywhere soon as it essentially means a complete redesign.
Therefore, it won't cause me any sorrow if this library gets rejected.
In fact, I'd prefer a rejection over acceptance with half-baked design.
I think it has been inspiring nevertheless and I'd like to thank all who
participated. In particular John Torjo for managing the reviews of my
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk