From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-18 09:21:49
Marcus,
thanks for your comment. I'll take this one as a motivation to express
my general views on the issue:
After eagerly defending the design, I begin realizing that not all the
critique is naysayerism ;-).
While I still think that the design is quite innovative and partially
sound, it has severe inconsistencies:
1. 'mutexed_singleton's need for a generic context (IOW, no type to code
against, except for 'lease' having unsuitable semantics),
2. inconsistent semantics of 'lease' classes of 'mutexed_singleton' and
'singleton' (with manually implemented synchronization).
... (several other issues raised during the review)
I think that separation of concerns might solve the problems, however,
it seems to me that I won't have enough spare time in one piece for it
anywhere soon as it essentially means a complete redesign.
Therefore, it won't cause me any sorrow if this library gets rejected.
In fact, I'd prefer a rejection over acceptance with half-baked design.
I think it has been inspiring nevertheless and I'd like to thank all who
participated. In particular John Torjo for managing the reviews of my
recent submissions.
Regards,
Tobias