2
0
mirror of https://github.com/boostorg/website.git synced 2026-01-19 16:52:15 +00:00
Files
website/community/implementation_variations.html
2024-09-01 08:56:16 -07:00

297 lines
14 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>Boost Implementation Variations</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<link rel="icon" href="/favicon.ico" type="image/ico" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href=
"/style-v2/section-community.css" />
<!--[if IE 7]> <style type="text/css"> body { behavior: url(/style-v2/csshover3.htc); } </style> <![endif]-->
<script defer data-domain="original.boost.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script></head><!--
Note: Editing website content is documented at:
https://www.boost.org/development/website_updating.html
-->
<body>
<div id="heading">
<!--#include virtual="/common/heading.html" -->
</div>
<div id="body">
<div id="body-inner">
<div id="content">
<div class="section" id="intro">
<div class="section-0">
<div class="section-title">
<h1>Boost Implementation Variations</h1>
</div>
<div class="section-body">
<h2>Separation of interface and implementation</h2>
<p>The interface specifications for boost.org library
components (as well as for quality software in general) are
conceptually separate from implementations of those interfaces.
This may not be obvious, particularly when a component is
implemented entirely within a header, but this separation of
interface and implementation is always assumed. From the
perspective of those concerned with software design,
portability, and standardization, the interface is what is
important, while the implementation is just a detail.</p>
<p>Dietmar K&uuml;hl, one of the original boost.org
contributors, comments "The main contribution is the interface,
which is augmented with an implementation, proving that it is
possible to implement the corresponding class and providing a
free implementation."</p>
<h2>Implementation variations</h2>
<p>There may be a need for multiple implementations of an
interface, to accommodate either platform dependencies or
performance tradeoffs. Examples of platform dependencies
include compiler shortcomings, file systems, thread mechanisms,
and graphical user interfaces. The classic example of a
performance tradeoff is a fast implementation that uses a lot
of memory versus a slower implementation which uses less
memory.</p>
<p>Boost libraries generally use a <a href=
"/doc/libs/release/libs/config/config.htm">configuration
header</a>, boost/config.hpp, to capture compiler and platform
dependencies. Although the use of boost/config.hpp is not
required, it is the preferred approach for simple configuration
problems.</p>
<h2>Boost policy</h2>
<p>The Boost policy is to avoid platform dependent variations
in interface specifications, but supply implementations which
are usable over a wide range of platforms and applications.
That means boost libraries will use the techniques below
described as appropriate for dealing with platform
dependencies.</p>
<p>The Boost policy toward implementation variations designed
to enhance performance is to avoid them unless the benefits
greatly exceed the full costs. The term "full costs" is
intended to include both tangible costs like extra maintenance,
and intangible cost like increased difficulty in user
understanding.</p>
<h2>Techniques for providing implementation variations</h2>
<p>Several techniques may be used to provide implementation
variations. Each is appropriate in some situations, and not
appropriate in other situations.</p>
<h3>Single general purpose implementation</h3>
<p>The first technique is to simply not provide implementation
variation at all. Instead, provide a single general-purpose
implementation, and forgo the increased complexity implied by
all other techniques.</p>
<p><strong>Appropriate:</strong> When it is possible to write a
single portable implementation which has reasonable performance
across a wide range of platforms. Particularly appropriate when
alternative implementations differ only in esoteric ways.</p>
<p><strong>Not appropriate:</strong> When implementation
requires platform specific features, or when there are multiple
implementation possible with widely differing performance
characteristics.</p>
<p>Beman Dawes comments "In design discussions, some
implementation is often alleged to be much faster than another,
yet a timing test discovers no significant difference. The
lesson is that while algorithmic differences may affect speed
dramatically, coding differences such as changing a class from
virtual to non-virtual members or removing a level of
indirection are unlikely to make any measurable difference
unless deep in an inner loop. And even in an inner loop, modern
CPUs often execute such competing code sequences in the same
number of clock cycles! A single general purpose implementation
is often just fine."</p>
<p>Or as Donald Knuth said, "Premature optimization is the root
of all evil." (Computing Surveys, vol 6, #4, p 268).</p>
<h3>Macros</h3>
<p>While the evils of macros are well known, there remain a few
cases where macros are the preferred solution:</p>
<ul>
<li>Preventing multiple inclusion of headers via #include
guards.</li>
<li>Passing minor configuration information from a
configuration header to other files.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Appropriate:</strong> For small compile-time
variations that would otherwise be costly or confusing to
install, use, or maintain. More appropriate to communicate
within and between library components than to communicate with
library users.</p>
<p><strong>Not appropriate:</strong> If other techniques will
do.</p>
<p>To minimize the negative aspects of macros:</p>
<ul>
<li>Only use macros when they are clearly superior to other
techniques. They should be viewed as a last resort.</li>
<li>Names should be all uppercase and begin with the
namespace name. This will minimize the chance of name
collisions. For example, the #include guard for a boost
header called foobar.h might be named BOOST_FOOBAR_H.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Separate files</h3>
<p>A library component can have multiple variations, each
contained in its own separate file or files. The files for the
most appropriate variation are copied to the appropriate
include or implementation directories at installation time.</p>
<p>The way to provide this approach in boost libraries is to
include specialized implementations as separate files in
separate sub-directories in the .ZIP distribution file. For
example, the structure within the .ZIP distribution file for a
library named foobar which has both default and specialized
variations might look something like:</p>
<pre>
foobar.h // The default header file
foobar.cpp // The default implementation file
readme.txt // Readme explains when to use which files
self_contained/foobar.h // A variation with everything in the header
linux/foobar.cpp // Implementation file to replace the default
win32/foobar.h // Header file to replace the default
win32/foobar.cpp // Implementation file to replace the default
</pre>
<p><strong>Appropriate:</strong> When different platforms
require different implementations, or when there are major
performance differences between possible implementations.</p>
<p><strong>Not appropriate:</strong> When it makes sense to use
more that one of the variations in the same installation.</p>
<h3>Separate components</h3>
<p>Rather than have several implementation variations of a
single component, supply several separate components. For
example, the Boost library currently supplies
<code>scoped_ptr</code> and <code>shared_ptr</code> classes
rather than a single <code>smart_ptr</code> class parameterized
to distinguish between the two cases. There are several ways to
make the component choice:</p>
<ul>
<li>Hardwired by the programmer during coding.</li>
<li>Chosen by programmer written runtime logic (trading off
some extra space, time, and program complexity for the
ability to select the implementation at run-time.)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Appropriate:</strong> When the interfaces for the
variations diverge, and when it is reasonable to use more than
one of the variations. When run-time selection of
implementation is called for.</p>
<p><strong>Not appropriate:</strong> When the variations are
data type, traits, or specialization variations which can be
better handled by making the component a template. Also not
appropriate when choice of variation is best done by some setup
or installation mechanism outside of the program itself. Thus
usually not appropriate to cope with platform differences.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> There is a related technique where
the interface is specified as an abstract (pure virtual) base
class (or an interface definition language), and the
implementation choice is passed off to some third-party, such
as a dynamic-link library or object-request broker. While that
is a powerful technique, it is way beyond the scope of this
discussion.</p>
<h3>Template-based approaches</h3>
<p>Turning a class or function into a template is often an
elegant way to cope with variations. Template-based approaches
provide optimal space and time efficiency in return for
constraining the implementation selection to compile time.</p>
<p>Important template techniques include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Data type parameterization. This allows a single
component to operate on a variety of data types and is why
templates were originally invented.</li>
<li>Traits parameterization. If parameterization is complex,
bundling up aspects into a single traits helper class can
allow great variation while hiding messy details. The C++
Standard Library provides several examples of this idiom,
such as <code>iterator_traits&lt;&gt;</code> (24.3.1
lib.iterator.traits) and <tt>char_traits&lt;&gt;</tt> (21.2
lib.char.traits).</li>
<li>Specialization. A template parameter can be used purely
for the purpose of selecting a specialization. For
example:</li>
</ul>
<pre>
SomeClass&lt;fast&gt; my_fast_object; // fast and small are empty classes
SomeClass&lt;small&gt; my_small_object; // used just to select specialization
</pre>
<p><strong>Appropriate:</strong> When the need for variation is
due to data type or traits or is performance-related like
selecting among several algorithms, and when a program might
reasonably use more than one of the variations.</p>
<p><strong>Not appropriate:</strong> When the interfaces for
variations are different, or when choice of variation is best
done by some mechanism outside of the program itself. Thus
usually not appropriate to cope with platform differences.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<!--#include virtual="/common/sidebar-common.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/common/sidebar-community.html" -->
</div>
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="footer">
<div id="footer-left">
<div id="revised">
<p>Revised $Date$</p>
</div>
<div id="copyright">
<p>Copyright Beman Dawes 2001.</p>
</div><!--#include virtual="/common/footer-license.html" -->
</div>
<div id="footer-right">
<!--#include virtual="/common/footer-banners.html" -->
</div>
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>