From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-01 17:34:12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [exception][policy]
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:33 PM, vicente.botet
> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Can my original idea of exception registry be implemented by the
>> Boost.Exception library?
>
> What are the benefits of the "exception registry" over the "function
> wrapper" approach that you mentioned?
Maybe my initial "exception registry" proposal has some drawbacks and need
to be pollished. The benefits I see are:
* The exception_registry will be done once for all and will profit to every
user of the exception_ptr library, while the wrapping approach forces every
user to wrap its functions.
* The wrapping approach has one try-catch block more than the
exception_registry approach, so less performant.
* The exception_registry approach centralize the knowledge of which
compilers provides the mechanisms to ensure that current_exception works for
any exception on the Boost.Exception library. The wrapping approach on the
best case split this knowledge into two libraries, and if the try_catch
functor class do not exists, into each user of the current_exception
function direct or indirect.
Do you see any benefits of the "function wrapper" over the "exception
registry" approach? Please, let me know if you have a use case where the
exception_registry proposal do not work? I'm really interested in seen if
together we can get a better solution.
> 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. 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?
Best,
Vicente