Re: [boost] functional abstract factory or virtual constructor

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-05 10:09:02

Stathi Triadis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
>>> I'm writing to gauge interest in an 'abstract factory',
>>> very similar to the recently accepted functional/factory.
>> Why not simply use factory/function combination?
>>
>>     typedef boost::function< A*(string, int) > AFactory;
>>     typedef boost::factory< B* > BFactory;
> 
> 
> That's quite nice... I didn't know you could do that. But this is no good
> for modularization, correct?

Not that I'm aware of. Why do you think so?

Doesn't the OO-style abstract factory you use in fact just encapsulate a 
function?

Regards,
Tobias