----- Mensaje original -----
De: Ion Gaztañaga
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