|
Boost Announcement : |
From: Thorsten Ottosen (tottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-19 06:48:16
Dear All,
I have the great pleasure to announce that the formal boost-review of
Marcin Kalicinski Property Tree Library begins now (the 18th of April)
and runs through the 27th of April.
Introduction
------------
This fairly high-level library consists of the following
facilities:
1. a generic recursive property-tree data-structure
2. generic conversions to/from this data-structure from/to
a. xml-files
b. ini-flies
c. json-files
d. windows registry files
As an example of how powerful the library is, consider this
tutorial:
- http://kaalus.atspace.com/ptree/doc/index.html#five_minute_tutorial
The library may be downloaded from
- the boost file vault http://boost-consulting.com/vault/
(property_tree_rev5.zip)
- tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/fkt7r
- boost sandbox: http://www.boost.org/more/mailing_lists.htm#sandbox
(look in boost/property_tree and libs/property_tree)
The documentation may be viewed online at
- http://kaalus.atspace.com/ptree/doc/index.html
If your find the above interesting, please consider submitting a review
to the boost developer mailing list:
- http://www.boost.org/more/mailing_lists.htm#main
You might end up using several hours on a review, but the end result
could be a superb library that will save you weeks of work.
Notes for reviewers
-------------------
When writing your review, you may wish to consider the following
questions:
* What is your evaluation of the design?
* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness
of the library?
* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
Did you have any problems?
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
* Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
And finally, every review should answer this question:
* Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments
don't obscure your overall opinion.
In particular, consider if you can answer the following questions:
- was the library suitable for your daily xml-tasks? If not, what was
missing?
- was the library's performance good enough? If not, can you suggest
improvements?
- was the library's design flexible enough? If not, how would you
suggest it should be redesigned to broaden its scope of use?
best regards
Thorsten Ottosen, Review Manager
Boost-announce 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