1. More informative class and method names
Well, the name heap makes me think of a certain kind of memory management system. Probably a name like Keepalive_bucket would be clearer?
Yes! There are probably even better names. Names might involve manual/garbage collection, owner, life time [synchronizer], delayed/synchronized destruction/or, respirator, reaper, .. well, probably getting a bit too creative here :) I'd love more suggestions/opinions though!
5. Raw pointers can be handled more efficiently than shared_ptrs
But think of it - if that pointed-to object is in use by some other means, it would be destroyed by the heap destructor nevertheless.
Creating a shared_ptr from a raw pointer has the same "problem". If users fail to realize this, they've misunderstood the whole point of the class.
An (untested) wrapper class I would start with would be something like:
class Keepalive: private boost::noncopyable { Std::vector< boost::shared_ptr<void> > v; public: template <typename T> void put(boost::shared_ptr<T> p) { v.push_back(p); }; template <typename T> void put(std::auto_ptr<T>& p) { v.push_back(boost::shared_ptr<T>(p)); }; template <typename T> void put(T *p) { v.push_back(boost::shared_ptr<T>(p)); }; };
Does that solve your needs?
Yes, this is basically what the implementation I'm using today I looks like. The question is if anybody else finds it useful. Again - thanks for your input! Johan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFC---lifetime-management-tf4425074.html#a12777199 Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.