Re: [Boost-users] [shmem] New bugfix version in Boost Vault and sandbox cvs

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 15:51:14

> I think this is their intended purpose, but I don't like using them 
> that way.  It gets confusing and brevity isn't attained as you have
> to qualify things.  Namespaces support a "let's just agree to 
> disagree" approach that isn't a resolution, but is the best that 
> can be done at times.  Do you think this shmem functionality should 
> be integrated with the std containers?

Some STL implementations are close to achieve Shmem compatibility and 
it's not difficult to achieve if they use allocator::pointer typedefs in 
their implementation instead of raw pointers.

> Does shmem support multi_index_containers?  

No.

> Or, depending on 
> how shmem fits into the picture, should B.MI take the lead in 
> supporting shmem functionality internally?  Y'all have more 
> flexibility in the B.MI case as it isn't part of the standard.

To be able to support Multi-index in shared memory we would need to 
rewrite it to replace all raw pointers with allocator::pointer typedefs. 
I haven't looked through multiindex code but this can be a big task. 
There is nothing that shmem can do to support multiindex if it uses raw 
pointers. But I think that multiindex and shmem can be a good base for 
in-memory data-bases.

Regards,

Ion