1. resource Let me repeat myself: "resource_manager is never(almost) the RESOURCE itself". It only managing code. This name would be really misleading. Also managed part is not assumed. FILE is the resource but it is not managed.
2. managed Name will be very unclear in most cases, cause the name of the policies would not be "file" or "handle": managed<array_storage_policy,shared_ownerwship_policy> - what is it? What is it manage? 3. releaser Too specific. It is reasonable name for only small part of resource_manager applications. For example resource_manager could be used to just log usage of the resource - how does it make it releaser? 4. proxy This name is too generic and is used in C++ in much more wide sense. 5. resource_manager (resource_mngr) May be the most close to the essence of the concept. But.... 6. smart_ptr a) As Peter Dimov remarked for majority of non native speakers will sound as good as resource_manager b) idiomatic - IOW Smart Pointer idiom is well established (We are not consider to name component that perform garbage collection - unused_memory_releaser, though it may closer reflect the essence and sound better for native speaker) c) unless somebody show how resource_manager is different from smart_ptr they will be two synonymous to the same component. So. Do we still want to fight about "best" name for non existent component? Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
