Re: [Boost-users] Factory pattern ?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Factory pattern ?
From: Maik Beckmann (beckmann.maik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-29 10:33:37

Jeremy Pack schrieb am Donnerstag 23 Oktober 2008 um 18:50:
> 1 - The shared_library and type_map classes handle much of what you want
> for DSO. I'm still working on a few convenience functions for the
> shared_library class, and working on adding some safety mechanisms to help
> avoid problems with binary incompatibility. Is there any specific
> functionality you'd like to see that may not be there?

Just being more portable and having it's own testing harness which doesn't use 
any of the factory part of boost.extension. 

> 2 - There are very few interdependencies between classes in the library.
> Many of the classes require either the type_map class or the type info
> functionality, but there are few, if any, other interdependencies. This
> means that the library could be split up well in quite a number of ways. I
> hope to resolve the question of whether or not to split the library during
> a pre-review process.

If the DSO part lives in its own directory it is easier to identify its 
independency.

I like to see boost.extension pops up on top when someone searches for 
  "C++ portable dlopen LoadLibrary"
or
  "c++ dso",
so as much developers as possible feel boost being a good place to contribute 
to  C++ DSO handling, even if they are not interested into the factory part. 

If the DSO part gets bigger and bigger, I suggest to make it an separate lib.

Greetings,
 -- Maik