Re: [boost] [GSOC] proposal for Trie

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSOC] proposal for Trie
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-23 04:52:19

2013/4/23 Michael Marcin <mike.marcin_at_[hidden]>:
> On 4/23/2013 1:37 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
>>
>>
>> May be I'm missing something
>
>
> Unfortunately I feel the same.
>
>
>>
>> But when we have access to internals it is a totally different situation:
>> * If we develop a non-intrusive container, we are free to split its
>> implementation to resource management and intrusive logic.
>
>
> By doing this split aren't you making an intrusive container and then
> layering the resource management ontop of it exactly as I suggested?
>
>
>> * If we develop an intrusive container - we need to add resource
>> management to make a non-intrusive container.
>>
>
> Isn't this the same thing?
>
>
>> In both situations we achieve same results - we have intrusive and
>> non-intrusive containers.
>>
>> So it works both ways *when we have access to internals* .
>>
>
> Right if you have a non-intrusive container and access to the source code
> you can, most likely, refactor it to be an intrusive container but I don't
> see how that is comparable to being able to layer an non-intrusive interface
> over top an intrusive container without changing the implementation.
>
> To put it another way if there was only intrusive_trie in boost. And a boost
> user using boost burned to a cd (read-only) she should be able to make trie
> in user code by writing a simple non-intrusive adapter.
>
> If there was only trie in boost in the same scenario she would not be able
> to make use of boost trie to implement intrusive_trie in user code short of
> copy-paste-modify.

Now I get it...

I was talking about intrusive/non-intusive with full access to sources
(in my head Boosters were doing one container from another), you were
talking about user that has no access to internals of implementation.

>From your point of view intrusive containers provide better code
reuse, from my point of view Boosters/GSOC will do both
implementations and there is no big difference from where to start.

Using your point of view: Code reuse is times better, but users
(including me) are usually lazy and more of them will prefer to work
with non-intrusive container, which makes intrusive less popular.

--
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin