Do we need the object pool pattern in entt having storage?

[rudiHammad]

Hello,
I have been reading recently about object pool, which in a nutshell it is allocating in memory pre-created object to be reused.
For instance in a space shootem up, where the boss enemy shoots 1000 projectiles on screen, or even the player's gun projectiles.
The object pool pattern sets everything nicely in memory to avoid memory gaps. I've also read that you can create linked list to know exactly where to point next....etc... anyway, long story short. Doesn't using entt::storage solve all that for us?
Here's a pseudo code:

struct ProjectileComponent
{
public:
    ProjectileComponent(bool isActive = false, float lifeTime = 1.0f, ...): isActive(isActive), lifeTime(lifeTime)

friend ProjectileSystem;
private:
    bool isActive;
    float lifeTime;
    ...
    
}

struct ProjectileSystem
{
public:
    ProjectileSystem(int projectilesNumber) 
    {
         // Pre-allocate the projectiles
         for (int i = 0; i < projectilesNumber; ++i)
        {
              auto entity = registry.create();
              registry.emplace<ProjectileComponent>(entity,  false, lifetime, ...)
         }
    }

   void update(float delta)
   {
        auto& projectileComponentPool = registry.storage<ProjectileComponent>();    // storage acting as the pool
       
      for (auto entity : projectileComponentPool ) {
              auto& projectileCmp = projectileComponentPool .get(entity);
              if (!projectileCmp .isActive) {
                  // Reactivate it
                  projectileCmp.isActive= true;
                 // what ever logic  goes next 
                 //...
          }
   }
}

So my question is if what I did in that pseudo code above isn't actually working as an object pool?

1. precreate and emplace the object. 2. we access them using registry.storage. 3. we set the logic that will flag them as active or inactive to be able to reuse them without have to create them. Look pretty simple to me with entt wo I am just wondering if missing anything.

thanks

[skypjack]

Yeah, you can use one or the other for the same purpose. As often happens in computer science, a problem has several possible valid solutions. 👍