In-depth analysis of storage management revealed a misconception
with respect to possible storage optimisations, requiring more
metadata fields to handle all corner cases correctly.
It seems prudent to avoid any but the most obvious optimisations
and wait for real-world usage for a better understanding of the
prevalent access patterns. However, in preparation for any future
optimisations, all access coordination and storage metadata is
now relocated into the `ArrayBucket`, and thus resides within the
managed allocation, allowing for localised layout optimisations.
To place this into context: the expected prevalent use case is
for the »Render Nodes Network«, which relies on `AllocationCluster`
for storage management; most nodes will have only a single predecessor
or successor, leading to a large number of lib::Several intsances
populated with a single data element. In such a scenario, it is
indeed rather wasteful to allocate four »slot« of metadata for
each container instance; even more so since most of this
metadata is not even required in such a scenario.
...which basically ''seems doable'' now, yet turns up several unsolved problems
- need a way to handle excess storage for the raw allocation
- generally should relocate all metadata into the ArrayBucket
- mismatch at various APIs; must re-think where to pass size explicitly
- unclear yet how and where to pass the actual element type to create
- code spelled out as intended, according to generic scheme
- can now encode the »unmanaged« case directly as `null`-deleter,
because in all other cases a deleter function is mandatory now
- add default constructor to `ArrayBucket`, detailing the default spread
The fundamental decision is that we want to have a single generic front-end,
meaning that we must jump dynamically into a configured deleter function.
And on top of that comes the additional requirement that ''some allocators''
are in fact tied to a specific instance, while other allocators are monostate.
However, we can distinguish both by probing if the allocator can be default constructed,
and if a default constructed allocator is equivalent to the currently used alloctor instance.
If this test fails, we must indeed maintain a single allocator instance,
and (to avoid overengineering for this rather special use case) we will
place this allocator instance into heap memory then, with a self-cleanup mechanism
On the other hand, all monostate allocators can be handled through static trapolines.
- create by forwarding allocator arguments to policy
- builder-Op to append from iterator
- decide to collapse the ArrayBucket class, since
access is going through unsafe pointer arithmetic anyway
- favour dynamic polymorphism
- use additional memory for management data alongside the element allocation
- encode a flag and a deleter pointer to enable ownership of the allocation
- inherit base container privately into builder, so the build ends with a slice
Some decisions
- use a single template with policy base
- population via separate builder class
- implemented similar to vector (start/end)
- but able to hold larger (subclass) objects
At the time of the initial design attempts, I naively created a
classic interface to describe an fixed container allocated ''elsewhere.''
Meanwhile the C++ language has evolved and this whole idea looks
much more as if it could be a ''Concept'' (C++20). Moreover, having
several implementations of such a container interface is deemed inadequate,
since it would necessitate ''at least two indirections'' — while
going the Concept + Template route would allow to work without any
indirection, given our current understanding that the `ProcNode` itself
is ''not an interface'' — rather a building block.
