Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Jason Winnebeck (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-17 10:03:21


Jim.Hyslop wrote:
> Jason Winnebeck wrote:
>
>>I am converting my old network library that uses explicit memory
>>management to use shared_ptr where appropriate. So far this has gone
>>well but I am having problem with cycles.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>One could use a weak pointer in the Generator to the
>>Listener, but then
>>the Listener may die as soon as it is registered.
>
> That's OK, though - each time the Generator wants to use the Listener, it
> constructs a shared_ptr out of the weak_ptr it has. If the shared_ptr is
> NULL, the Generator knows the Listener has gone away, and can take the
> appropriate steps to unregister the Listener.

I'm not sure if I like that. One thing I thought was neat that the
shared_ptr let me do is a "registerListener( MyLister::create() );" the
create method is following the design from the FAQ of protected
constructors and static create method returning a shared_ptr. That way
the user doesn't need to keep references to his listeners -- only to my
Connection objects (I think personally it makes more sense to store a
list of connections rather than a list of connection listeners when
using a network API). I wanted it so that the listeners would die when
the object won't generate events, in the Connection case, when the
connection is disconnected I unregister its listener. The user can have
active shared_ptr to the Connection and its listener without fear of cycles.

Is my thinking wrong on this?

> If you want to make things easy for the user, don't offer them a choice.
> Choice means complexity. Complexity is bad. Require the user to use a
> shared_ptr to the Generator.
>

I always hate these choices... On one hand I want to design the API as
clean and simple as possible, on the other hand developers seem to get
anxious if you force design paradigms down their throat, even if they
are good ones. Based on the fact my library is C++ half of the people
won't use it already, multithreaded kills another half, using exceptions
takes another, now using reference counting will take another ;). I've
designed the library so that the user only uses the classes at the level
they want (I have several layers of classes with higher layers built
using code only from layers below), but I've taken the stance that I
won't compromise what I consider to be proper design for fear of
alienating users, but that is somewhat arrogant?

Jason


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net