Re: MappedFile constructors

[David Sugar]

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
>