Re: [boost] [GSoC][cgi] Status update.

From: Peter Foley (peter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-20 05:40:28

Darren,

> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:27:08 +0100
> From: "Darren Garvey" <lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC][cgi] Status update.
> To: boost_at_[hidden]

*snip*

> 
> The thing I've been wondering is about a single library dumping more
> than
> one namespace into the boost namespace, so you'd have boost::cgi,
> boost::fcgi and boost::scgi. I guessed that idea would be shot down in
> flames though.

*snip*

I am not sure what the boost policy or convention for putting stuff into
the Boost namespace is but personally I think that having distinct
namespaces for each type of protocol makes sense.  Logically they are
implementing different standards.  I know there is some overlap in
behaviour and use.  Maybe this could be in a boost::cgi::common
namespace and be pulled into each of the distinct namespaces.

Peter.