Re: [boost] Review Request: Generalization of the Pimpl idiom

From: Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-03-31 19:15:57

"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:<014201c8937c$c1380180$0301a8c0_at_viboes1>...
> Hello,
> 
> First of all, I think that a pimpl library should have a place in boost, 
but 
> I think that the pimpl idiom do not scale very well (see below).
> 
> Even if your library is usable in simple cases, I would like to see how 
it 
> can manage more complex cases. And if no satisfactory solution to this 
case 
> is possible, that the library states explicitly when it can not be used.

Would it be possible to elaborate that exactly you mean by "more complex 
cases"? Inheriting from a pimpl-based class? I think it covered. What 
else? Not like my own deployment experience is of any guidance but still 
I've been using this idiom in my every-day development for about a year 
and have not come across something that I felt was not a good fit for that 
idiom. I'd rather say that the pimpl idiom in general does not handle well 
simple (rather than complex) cases where the overhead of creating private 
implementation on the heap is not affordable.

> 
> Do you think to write the library documentation before the review? Even 
if 
> there is a tutorial in DDJ, IMHO,  you should spend some time on the 
> documentation of the library before the review.

In addition to the tutorial I have API documented in the header in the 
format for doxygen. Although I have to confess when I did run it through 
doxygen it did not seem to produce anything I saw valuable so I did not 
include that doxygen-generated file. Will look into it again though.
 
Thanks,
Vladimir.