On 9/2/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/1/07, Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@isonews2.com> wrote:
Marco Costalba wrote:
This is a simple yet interesting object factory.
Please see
Probably there is a difference in naming conventions between mine and the above proposed link. There "Factory" is actual what in my example is called "Creator", i.e. the _thing_ that calls the object constructor. It is bounded to one object class. While what I called factory, it seems to be called "dispatcher", i.e. a _thing_ that given a key in input, as example a string with the class name, calls the actual object "creator", you would say the object factory. Indeed in the above link I fail to see the mapping framework between class identifiers and actual creators/factories for that class, or put in other words I don't see the dispatcher.
A similar approach could be done with http://dispatcher.sourceforge.net/ -- only this time it's not required that the function registered is a "factory". It could very well be any function registered.
The dispatcher is much nicer ;-) i.e. is what I'm looking for especially for the clean syntax. I will study better. Anyhow dispatcher does not support contructor overloading, as example I can register functions that calls two different object constructors: MyObject* function_0() { return MyObject(); }; MyObject* function_1(int v) { return MyObject(v); }; d["MyObject_0"] = function_0; d["MyObject_1"] = function_1; But when I call I have to use two different keys, in this case "MyObject_0" and "MyObject_1". d["MyObject_0"](); d["MyObject_1"](7); With my example factory I would say instead: Factory::object("MyObject"); // calls function_0 Factory::object("MyObject", 7); // calls function_1 Indeed I didn't find this "constructor overloading" feature in any place. Marco