From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-01 17:34:12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [exception][policy]
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:33 PM, vicente.botet
> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Can my original idea of exception registry be implemented by the
>> Boost.Exception library?
> What are the benefits of the "exception registry" over the "function
> wrapper" approach that you mentioned?
Maybe my initial "exception registry" proposal has some drawbacks and need
to be pollished. The benefits I see are:
* The exception_registry will be done once for all and will profit to every
user of the exception_ptr library, while the wrapping approach forces every
user to wrap its functions.
* The wrapping approach has one try-catch block more than the
exception_registry approach, so less performant.
* The exception_registry approach centralize the knowledge of which
compilers provides the mechanisms to ensure that current_exception works for
any exception on the Boost.Exception library. The wrapping approach on the
best case split this knowledge into two libraries, and if the try_catch
functor class do not exists, into each user of the current_exception
function direct or indirect.
Do you see any benefits of the "function wrapper" over the "exception
registry" approach? Please, let me know if you have a use case where the
exception_registry proposal do not work? I'm really interested in seen if
together we can get a better solution.
> Do you have a use case where the
> "function wrapper" wouldn't work, but the "exception registry" would?
No, not now. I was asking this only because I think that it is a better
solution to include it in the Exception library and also because you were
proposing this for the thread_pool library. Quotting you from your preceding
post : "Your function wrapper solution is a possibility. Another possibility
is, if the thread pool library is not third party, it can implement your
original idea of exception registry." So, if you think that this could be a
possibility for the thread_pool library, it should be even better for the
exception library, because in this way, other libraries will profit of this
commonality, isn't it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk