Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-11 22:36:33

on Fri May 11 2012, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Mathias Gaunard
> <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:55, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>
>>> The algorithm now looks like:
>>>
>>> If symlinks are supported:
>
>>> Â  Sym link the directory
>>> Â  if there is a conflict, create
>>> Â  Â  a subdirectory and symlink all
>>> Â  Â  the members.
>>> Else if hardlinks are supported:
>>> Â  Hard-link all leaves
>>> Else
>>> Â  Copy all leaves
>>
>>
>> You don't want to copy the leaves, but rather create a dummy file with a
>> #include directive with the relative path to the original.
>
> "Copy the leaves" if all else fails has the advantage of preserving
> existing uses (like HTML links) that won't be followed with a dummy
> forwarding #include. It may well be faster to use.
>
> OTOH, I can imagine cases on a Boost developer's machine where the
> developer would prefer dummy forwarding #includes. 

Like, always.

> So perhaps exactly what happens if all else fails should be an
> option. A bit hard to know without some real-life experience.

If I were going to invest in this I'd use forwarding headers and a link
rewriter for the HTML.  But I advise not investing too much in the
options here, as this whole monolithic arrangement should be
short-lived.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com