These are very sad news. I started to use it in my current project and am highly satisfied with it for my current needs. I hope that the interface (accessing the singleton) would remain the same.

With Kind Regards,
Ovanes

On Jan 29, 2008 1:03 PM, John Torjo <john.groups@torjo.com> wrote:
Hi all,

We've gotten a lot of feedback on the Boost.Utility/Singleton. It's
clear that such an addition would be beneficial to Boost, but I've
chosen to reject the library at this time.

Summary:
- 4 positive reviews
- 4 negative reviews

Phil Endecott - yes
Nat Goodspeed - yes
Dherring[@]ll[]mit[]edu - yes
Ingolf Steinbach - yes
Anthony Williams - no
Gennady - no
Pierre-Jules Tremblay - no
Michael Marcin - no

The main concern was that the library is not flexible enough, and that
it imposes too many things on the users (like, if BOOST_HAS_THREADS is
defined, the singleton is automatically thread-safe).

I would like to see this into Boost, so I hope Tobias will update the
library, given all this feedback, and I would suggest another review in
2-3 months. I'd like to be the review manager then as well, if Tobias
will still want me.

Suggestions:
* Should use policies to specify creation/destruction, access to
singleton, resurection
 For creation/destruction, one should be able to have
 singleton<single_thread<T> >, singleton< synchronized<T> >, singleton<
thread_specific<T> >
* example for DLL support
* more detailed docs


As for the next review of the library, I will talk to Tobias, and let
the review wizard know.
Thanks to Tobias, for the lib, and to all that participated to the review!


Best,
John
- Review Manager -


--
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
... call me only if you want things done right


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users