Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C++ class that may or may not own resource for convienence
39 views
Skip to first unread message
joe...@gmail.com
Mar 21, 2017, 8:17:10 AM3/21/17
to
Is there a more well worn idiom for a class that, by default, will own its own resource, but will also be happy to have that resource externally created/managed?
For example:
#include <memory>
class Resource
{
//stuff
};
class Report
{
public:
Report() { report = std::make_shared<Resource>();}
Report(Resource* a) { report= std::shared_ptr<Resource>(a, [](Resource*){});}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Resource> report;
};
Class above can use default copy constructor or default assignment operator and the shared ptr should always carry the right deleter here I believe.
Can anyone offer improvements here? Is there a more well worn pattern here?
JC
For example:
#include <memory>
class Resource
{
//stuff
};
class Report
{
public:
Report() { report = std::make_shared<Resource>();}
Report(Resource* a) { report= std::shared_ptr<Resource>(a, [](Resource*){});}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Resource> report;
};
Class above can use default copy constructor or default assignment operator and the shared ptr should always carry the right deleter here I believe.
Can anyone offer improvements here? Is there a more well worn pattern here?
JC
Öö Tiib
Mar 22, 2017, 9:23:42 AM3/22/17
to
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 14:17:10 UTC+2, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a more well worn idiom for a class that, by default, will own its own
> resource, but will also be happy to have that resource externally created/managed?
Motivating example of problem is missing for me for such
> Is there a more well worn idiom for a class that, by default, will own its own
> resource, but will also be happy to have that resource externally created/managed?
"maybe managing".
Alf P. Steinbach
Mar 22, 2017, 3:44:55 PM3/22/17
to
Cheers!,
- Alf
0 new messages