David Abrahams wrote:

>  [digression:
> 
>  I notice that you're using return_internal_reference<>() to return the
>  Base* from the ObjectServer. Does the ObjectServer actually control
>  the lifetime of the objects, or is it simply holding pointers? I ask
>  because I don't see a destructor, so in the code you sent,
>  return_internal_reference<> is inappropriate (maybe you were just
>  eliminating details for the sake of the post?) -- the point of
>  return_internal_reference<> is to keep the owning object alive as long
>  as the owned objects are also alive. If something else is managing
>  their lifetimes, you may need another mechanism.
>  ]

nope, of course the ObjectServer manages the lifetime of the Base objects ;
I just made up a simple example for the post.

>  ...
> 
>  In the meantime, if the ObjectServer is really the owner of the C++
>  objects, you might consider storing boost::python::object in its
>  m_objects array. If you convert your Derived objects to
>  boost::python::object at their point of creation, the full dynamic
>  type will be preserved for Python.

I'll use some other mecanisms for now (such as a collection of functions
that wrap a collection of dynamic_casts - as for my tests I don't need a
full blown solution), as I try to extend Python with existing code and I
like the non-intrusive paradigm.

As for your other points, I'll try to take some time to take a closer look
to all this ... I'll see what I can get playing with custom return value
policies and/or boost/python/object/make_instance.hpp [I'll have a look at
this first, I'd really like to have a 'working' isinstance :) ].

I'll let you know if I have some results !

Thanks for the hints & your help,
Nicolas.

_______________________________________________
C++-sig mailing list
C++-sig@[...].org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig