On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 2:34 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Do you have a use case where the "function wrapper" wouldn't work, but the "exception registry" would?
No, not now. I was asking this only because I think that it is a better solution to include it in the Exception library and also because you were proposing this for the thread_pool library.
In my mind both approaches are about the same, except that the wrapper approach is decoupled from the exception library. It's not that I like it better, but it can be implemented on top of the current exception library interface. I certainly don't want to add anything to Boost Exception without knowing that someone has a use case for that.
Quotting you from your preceding post : "Your function wrapper solution is a possibility. Another possibility is, if the thread pool library is not third party, it can implement your original idea of exception registry." So, if you think that this could be a possibility for the thread_pool library, it should be even better for the exception library, because in this way, other libraries will profit of this commonality, isn't it?
What is "the" tread_pool library we're talking about? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode