Re: [Somelib] Perhaps a SOME::Object and SOME::SmartObject are needed

[Thomas M. <tma...@ze...>]

John Palmieri wrote:

> Perhaps instead of getting rid of the boost stuff which could be useful
> to some projects we could create two seperate objects:
>
> SOME::Object which works like the current SOME::Object with the
> exception that it does not destroy the pointer when it goes out of scope
> and provides a destroy, delete, dismember, etc. method for deleting a
> contained object.
>
> SOME::SmartObect which uses the boost smart pointers.
>
> or if you want to keep the functionality of SOME::Object the same we
> could have a SOME::PersistantObject.
>
> What do you think?

One of the reasons I'm leaning toward sucking some_boost::shared_ptr into
SOME::Object is that I have changed the implementation and it would be
confusing to someone who was using boost::shared_ptr.  I'm really thinking
we need to eliminate some_boost.
How about this:
Change ClassCatalog so that instead of giving you shared_ptr's it gives raw
pointers, and create an Object heirarchy.

Object - abstract base class with virtual functions for getting the T* and
|                overloaded operators so that it acts like a pointer.
|
|-SmartObject - Uses ref count
|
|-PersistantObject - No automatic deletion, must call destroy() or
whatever.
|
|-MetaObject? Some automatic CoreLinux++ stuff (I have no idea what I'm
talking about :)

The biggest downside to this is the virtual function calls but we already
had that, and the user can skip the Object and get the pointer directly if
so desired.  Seems to satisfy both our requirements.


--
Thomas O Matelich
Senior Software Designer
Zetec, Inc.
sos...@us...
tma...@ze...