[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MappedFile constructors
From: |
David Sugar |
Subject: |
Re: MappedFile constructors |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:44:05 -0500 (EST) |
Originally I had thought of MappedFile and File as internal classes, and
yes, then they should have had protected constructors as well. However,
if one can make use of them as is, I see no reason to put artificial
barriers in the way, and then yes, it should be public.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:
>
> It also seems to me that File::Access should be public, and a
> quick look makes me think that File::Error should also made
> public. Any other opinion?
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:24:05PM -0800, Alex Pavloff wrote:
> >
> > Both ost::MappedFile constructors take an ost::File::Access parameter.
> > ost::File::Access is declared protected. The constructors are
> > public.Obviously, something's not right, as of course, you can't create a
> > MappedFile unless you derive from it.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > Are the MappedFile constructors supposed to be protected or is File::Access
> > supposed to be public?
> >
> > I'm guessing that File::Access needs to be fixed, because both SharedFile
> > and ThreadFile have public constructors that work, which I believe implies
> > that they're supposed to be used as is.
> >
> > Alex Pavloff - address@hidden
> > Eason Technology -- www.eason.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>