Subject: Re: [boost] sqlpp11, 3rd iteration
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-19 10:45:39
On 2014-08-19 16:01, Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
> Roland Bock wrote:
>> On 2014-08-19 14:03, Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
>>> But I think optionals wouldn't be safe. Correct me if I'm wrong. If
>>> optionals were used without a check for validity and the unexpected
>>> NULL value was set in the DB (maybe by mistake), it could result in
>>> segmentation fault. Of course assuming that the macro BOOST_ASSERT()
>>> wouldn't be expanded to some exception throw. This could lead to some
>>> security vulnerabilities in apps using this library.
>> I thought the whole purpose of the optional-interface was to make people
>> to check for validity first?
>> If I understand you correctly, you should be more happy with the current
> Yes, exceptions and default values seems to be better to handle the
> NULL/unexpected values.
> I started the discussion because you wrote in the Wiki that the
> problem with optionals is related to the binding of values which IMO
> is just an implementation detail. Maybe it would be a good idea to
> explicitly state why do you think that optionals shouldn't be used.
> Define a rationale behind it.
Thanks for the discussion, its been quite helpful :-)