Re: [Boost-users] boost::pool

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost::pool
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-02 23:45:48

Am Tuesday 03 November 2009 04:08:14 schrieb Diederick C. Niehorster:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> In that case, wouldn't (shouldn't) it be possible to request a
> re-review of libraries alreayd accepted, provided there is good
> reason? In other words, as standards evolve, is there a mechanism by
> which libraries no longer up to par can be removed from
> boost/deprecated/marked as no longer officially endorsed, something
> like that (I can see that simply removing them would make people
> depending on them very unhappy).

this was my personal opinion only, others may find Boost.Pool sufficient. I 
don't know what the process is to deprecate a library, but I think the right 
way is to submit Boost.Pool2.

I actually considered that, but while recreating the functionality of 
Boost.Pool is pretty easy, given that Boost.Intrusive now exists, a generic 
pool allocation library is some effort.
some things that come to mind is multiple allocation algorithms to meet 
different time complexity and memory overhead needs, pools that allow 
allocation of different-sized objects,  maybe even a generic "allocation 
algorithm" library that is not limited to chunks of memory, but can be used 
for disk space and other arbitrary ranges, like allocating IDs.

> >
> > I'd consider using another library, or allocate your objects in bulk
> > yourself and, e.g. store the unused objects in a boost::intrusive::slist
> > until they're needed.
> > boost::object_pool has some major problems, e.g. linear complexity of
> > free(). the library is a decade old and I don't think it would be
> > accepted if it was reviewed as it is today.