From: Konstantin Litvinenko (Konstantin.Litvinenko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-10 06:17:58
You wrote on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:57:06 -0400:
BD> I'll like to challenge Boosters to think about this problem a bit more,
BD> and I'd love to see someone who understands the challenges take, say,
BD> Boost.System and demonstrate how it could be packaged for either
BD> header-only or compiled-library use. The important goal would be to
BD> abstract what to done into a general set of guidelines (and any
BD> configuration support needed). In other words, we don't so much need a
BD> solution for Boost.System as for any Boost library that would benefit
BD> from a hybrid computation model.
Don't you see that the root of all these problems derived from statement
"There are no one standart way do download, deploy, build procedure in C++
world"? If boosters define such procedure and make all these things easy to
do, than all, developers and users, will be happy. No need to think about
complex configs to support hybrid models or other magic things. Developers
will focus on library implementation, not on "how to make this header
only?". Users will build apps without spending dozen of hours to figure out
how to integrate libxxx into environment.
I think we need infrastructure that removes all these issues. If we would
have boost.build (I mean v2) widely supported, than having tools that allow
smooth and easy IDEs integration(generation vcprojec, bpr etc) than adding
new library into existing project will be as easy as "just include this
header". This improve build time for both, user and developers. This will
allow use system dependent things without worrying to break something.
Sorry about my english :((((
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk