Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited
From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-28 21:20:29


I feel the discussion highlighted the fact that our design priorities and
usage patterns seem quite irreconcilable within one class. More so, the
discussion seems to have introduced new requirements like
old-standard-compliant low-level copying, ability to create an uninitialized
uuid instance, efficient and economic initialization from hard-coded uuids
(mentioned by Adam) that might not have been addressed in Andy's
implementation yet. Therefore, I feel that yours and Dave's suggestions of
"a low-level representation class as well as a higher-level wrapper with
stronger invariants" might be the best approach to cater for those widely
differing deployments. At present it'll probably be Andy's call if/how he
decides to incorporate your suggestions and package it all as two classes or
to discard one or the other. Ideally, I'd probably like to see two classes.
Something like boost::aggregate_uuid and a boost::uuid wrapper as I suspect
that wrapper to be the most common deployment choice. If the decision is
made to go only for one aggregate-type uuid, then I'd like we make sure the
documentation spells out how to "objectify" (what'd be a better term?) that
aggregate type.


P.S. As a side note, I am glad we had the discussion and I appreciate you
kept it going -- it forced me to have a fresh look at aggregates from a
completely different perspective. Due to the specifics of my work I am
unlikely to deploy any of that in the short timeframe. However, it surely
enriched me. Thank you.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at