Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-11 18:30:14
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:39:35 +0100, Jeff Flinn
> [...]I think with the right abstractions the seemingly contradictory
> goals can be accommodated. That's what I'm attempting to find. As stated
> at a previous boostcon: "... abstractions are discovered not invented..."
> IMHO, previous version of process have not discovered the proper
> abstractions. I'm sure that the entirely different paradigms between
> windows and posix have contributed to the difficulties so far. It's
> difficult to be a master of the subject matter in both domains.
> I think building upon existing boost filesystem and iostreams libraries
> and their abstractions that do successfully address platform differences
> will make the effort more successful. Additionally I think it's
> mandatory for a design to directly acknowledge the multi-phase
> constraints of the fork/exec paradigm. Also it's mandatory to break down
> the historical monolithic approaches into more tenable pieces.
Thanks for your comments, Jeff, Ilya and Nat! How would you (and others)
feel about a Boost.Process library which only aims to replace
std::system() with a more powerful function? You could configure the child
process a bit (its streams, environment variables and a few more things)
and that's all. This would be a less ambitious goal but obviously more
easily to reach. I was under the impression that we want more? Maybe we
still want more but settle realistically for this goal?
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net