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

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 16:05:18

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Sábado, Mayo 6, 2006 9:51 pm
Asunto: Re: [Boost-users] [shmem] New bugfix version in Boost Vault
        andsandbox cvs

> > 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.
> 

I wholeheartedly agree with you shmem and multi_index should be
able to interoperate nicely. My other activities in B.MI, and my
rather shallow knowleddge of shmem, prevent me from attacking
this task right away, but I'd be happy if some bold Booster could
do some analysis/prototype of the changes involved in B.MI for it
to work with shmem, so that eventually I can integrate those
changes. If someone is up to the task, do count on my
support/assitance for matters concerning the inner structure of
B.MI.

Best regards,

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo