C++ - Proper way of using std::vector & related memory management - c++

Question

Hy, I would like to ask a question that puzzles me.
I've a class like this:
class A {
private:
std::vector<Object*>* my_array_;
...
public
std::vector<Object*>& my_array(); // getter
void my_array(const std::vector<Object*>& other_array); // setter
};
I wanted to ask you, based on your experience, what is the correct way of implementing the setter and getter in a (possible) SAFE manner.
The first solution came to my mind is the following.
First, when I do implement the setter, I should:
A) check the input is not a referring to the data structure I already hold;
B) release the memory of ALL objects pointed by my_array_
C) copy each object pointed by other_array and add its copy to my_array_
D) finally end the function.
The getter may produce a copy of the inner array, just in case.
The questions are many:
- is this strategy overkilling?
- does it really avoid problems?
- somebody really uses it or are there better approaches?
I've tried to look for the answer to this question, but found nothing so particularly focused on this problem.
That of using smart pointers is a very good answer, i thank you both.. it seems I can not give "useful answer" to more than one so I apologize in advance. :-)
From your answers however a new doubt has raised.
When i use a vector containing unique_ptr to objects, I will have to define a deep copy constructor. Is there a better way than using an iterator to copy each element in the vector of objects, given that now we are using smart pointers?

Answer 1

I'd normally recommend not using a pointer to a vector as a member, but from your question it seems like it's shared between multiple instances.
That said, I'd go with:
class A {
private:
std::shared_ptr<std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Object> > > my_array_;
public
std::shared_ptr<std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Object> > > my_array(); // getter
void my_array(std::shared_ptr<std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Object> > > other_array); // setter
};
No checks necessary, no memory management issues.
If the inner Objects are also shared, use a std::shared_ptr instead of the std::unique_ptr.

Answer 2

I think you are overcomplicating things having a pointer to std::vector as data member; remember that C++ is not Java (C++ is more "value" based than "reference" based).
Unless there is a strong reason to use a pointer to a std::vector as data member, I'd just use a simple std::vector stored "by value".
Now, regarding the Object* pointers in the vector, you should ask yourself: are those observing pointers or are those owning pointers?
If the vector just observes the Objects (and they are owned by someone else, like an object pool allocator or something), you can use raw pointers (i.e. simple Object*).
But if the vector has some ownership semantics on the Objects, you should use shared_ptr or unique_ptr smart pointers. If the vector is the only owner of Object instances, use unique_ptr; else, use shared_ptr (which uses a reference counting mechanism to manage object lifetimes).
class A
{
public:
// A vector which owns the pointed Objects
typedef std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Object>> ObjectArray;
// Getter
const ObjectArray& MyArray() const
{
return m_myArray
}
// Setter
// (new C++11 move semantics pattern: pass by value and move from the value)
void MyArray(ObjectArray otherArray)
{
m_myArray = std::move(otherArray);
}
private:
ObjectArray m_myArray;
};