activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mats Forslöf <Mats.Fors...@portwise.com>
Subject RE: Regarding feedback on OpenWire C++ client
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:00:52 GMT
Nate,

>You get no benefits at all by adding smart pointers to the interface.
>The user will delete their objects whenever they wish, regardless of
>what the openwire library does ... and if it does so, the openwire
>library will explode as soon as it tries to reference it.  That's the
>thing - this is C++ and there is no mechanism to prevent someone from
>coding badly, and adding smart pointers to the API isn't going to change
>that. The user is responsible for both adding and removing referenes to
>its objects.  And it's not the job of the openwire lib to worry about
>memory management in the user-domain - it should only be concerned with
>its own memory management.

>In addition, smart pointers are assuming that the object is allocated on
>the heap, as it will do a "delete" when the last reference is removed.
>This is wrong, because the user should be able allocate its objects in
>whatever way makes sense for the application.

>Also, adding smart pointer arguments to all the methods on the api makes
>it complicated and ugly.  If the openwire library wants to use smart pointers
>internally, that's fine, but it shouldn't impose the use of smart pointers
>on the user.  It's our job to make the user's experience a good one so they
>continue to use ActiveMQ in their applications.

Please define the interfaces that you want to be SP-free!

>It's all about the user and helping them come up to speed and use the api
>as quickly and painlessly as possible.  I understand that in these cases
>you're passing a pointer and not copying, but it complicates the user
>interface when the person just wants to pass in a string.  They shouldn't
>have to create a string on the heap an then wrap it in a smart pointer to
>just call a function.

Just a quick note, this is not necessary with the current design of accepting "const char*"
and returning p<string>. The user can easily extract the const char from the SP string
if wanted. 

>Class Xxx {
>  std::string name;
>  void setName (const std::string& name) {
>    this->name = name;
>  }
>  const std::string& getName () const {
>    return this->name;
>  }
>};

Shall we agree on the one above?

Regards,
Mats & David


Mime
View raw message