Hi Nathan, On 3/26/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've taken a closer look at the openwire C++ client this weekend and noticed > a few things ... > > 1) I think there are a few cases where we could reduce the usage of smart > pointers. > > One instance where I think smart pointer usage is questionable is when > openwire is referencing an object that it doesn't control. For example, > when my code declares a class that is an IMessageListener, it seems strange > that this should be passed in as a smart pointer to openwire functions. > Openwire doesn't control the lifetime of this object, so I don't believe it > should be referencing it in a "managed" way. > > Another case where smart pointers could be avoided is strings. If all > string member variables are std::strings, then the setXXX method could just > take a "const char*" and the const getXXX method could simply return a > "const char*" (which would be the value returned from the mystr.c_str() > method). This makes for a much simpler and symmetric API. >
I agreed. I think it may be possible to be even more aggressive and avoid having the interface classes use smart pointers at all. I think the if we define good ownership rules, then we do not need to have the API user need to worry about smart pointers. On a related note, It would be nice if the name spaces used were changed so that they paralleled the .NET stuff a little closer. It might be nice to have a 'cms' name space the holds all the interface classes and a 'activemq', 'activemq::transport', etc. name space that holds all the activemq implementation of the interfaces. Using 'org::apache::activemq' seems a little verbose to me. Regards, Hiram > 2) ITextMessage should extend IMessage > > It seems that the ITextMessage class was at one time derived from IMessage, > but it is commented out (probably to get through compilation :-) ). If you > try to call send() on the MessagePublisher class with an ITextMessage, the > code won't compile. > agreed. > I've gotten around this by making ITextMessage extend IMessage - the trick > is that when you do this, ActiveMQTextMessage gets IMessage from two > branches. In one branch, it gets the methods from IMessage implemented for > it ( by ActiveMQMessage) and in the other branch (ITextMessage), it > doesn't. So you have to have ActiveMQTextMessage implement all the methods > from the IMessage interface and delegate them to the ActiveMQMessage base > class. This seems to do the trick. > The joys of multiple inheritance :) -- Regards, Hiram
