class iResource
{
protected:
// this is a base class designed to be overloaded depending on the specific // resource to be acessed. I am considering using void pointers instead, it
short index;
iResource *next;
iResource *prev;
public:
iResource();
iResource(iResource &rhs);
~iResource();
void Delete(); //close the gap created by deleting this index
};
std::vector (or queue, or list) or Chained pointers?
Author
I'm working on a graphics system that handles resources like textures, and eventually even game objects by using a list/stack/chain of resources that are created and added to the stack, then randomly acessed out of it by the system. I need a fast storage system for these resources. Should I use an STD container (such as list or vector)? Or will a group of resource classes chained together with poitners be faster (or use less memory)
here is the class that I am thinking about (I don't have my index function written yet)
I expect to add some basic functionallity to this class later, but right now I am going for absolute basics. Anyway, I know that this does not have the power of the STD classes, but I am tring to make it lighter than they are. Am I better off just using the std library?
As it stands now, your system uses more memory than an std::vector and std::list implementations, and possibly also std::deque. It's also slower than std::vector and std::deque, and possibly also std::list depending on your usage and your implementation.
Remember: nobody can outperform the standard library containers without determining their weaknesses first, which means that you should write the initial code using the SC++L anyway, and only then determine if, and how, you can try to increase performance or reduce size. For a resource manager, I'd say the effort is not worth it anyway.
However, the biggest problem is that your class violates the Single Responsibility Principle (because it's both a resource and a linked list node). Even if you don't use the SC++L for storage, at least separate the two responsibilities (storage versus function).
Remember: nobody can outperform the standard library containers without determining their weaknesses first, which means that you should write the initial code using the SC++L anyway, and only then determine if, and how, you can try to increase performance or reduce size. For a resource manager, I'd say the effort is not worth it anyway.
However, the biggest problem is that your class violates the Single Responsibility Principle (because it's both a resource and a linked list node). Even if you don't use the SC++L for storage, at least separate the two responsibilities (storage versus function).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
