Re: [boost] [compond_file_binary] Gauging interest in a possible library submission.

Subject: Re: [boost] [compond_file_binary] Gauging interest in a possible library submission.
From: Alexander Voitenko (tarmik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-05 09:20:08

First of all I want to mention that my library is not finished yet. I am at
the end of implementing planned features for the first release, but some
additional effort is needed. I have no plans to add support for the all
features that MS implementation provides in the first release, but want to
develop library in evolutionary way. Also I plan add some features in next
releases that are not supported by MS implementation: storage compacting and
defragmentation. I found on the Internet that users need them.

> More generally, does your library support the properties of the MS
> compound 
> storage implementation as described here: 
> 
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa378871(v=vs.85).aspx
> ?

Here is that list with my comments.

[Incremental access.]
Implemented and tested.

[Multiple use.]
Not implemented, but I think often about that. The main problem: I can not
decide use C++11 threading model or switch to some cross-platform
library(Boost.Thread may be?)
For now supported one thread per one compound files.
Also, threading implementation and testing will require lot of effort. And I
not plan to include multithreading  support in the first release.

[Transaction processing.]
Not supported. Planned in next releases.

[Low-memory saves.]
Yes. I designed the library to be memory efficient. All needed memory is
allocated on stream opening.
I plan to test memory issues by emulating std::bad_alloc in various places.

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/compond-file-binary-Gauging-interest-in-a-possible-library-submission-tp4639282p4639462.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.