Re: <boost/config.hpp> violates OCP and SDP

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-27 18:07:57

on 5/27/01 1:16 PM, Vesa Karvonen at vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden] wrote:

[SNIP]
> I propose the following names for the schemes:
> - external config     (the strictly isolating scheme)
> - dispatching config  (the STLPort scheme)
> - internal config     (the current Boost scheme)
> 
> IMO, it is necessary to change the <boost/config.hpp> design,
> because of the known problems inherent in using an internal config.
> The more difficult issue is how it should be done. The following is
> my proposal:
> 
> All new platforms would use an external config. In case the
> detection code in <boost/config.hpp> fails, it should give an #error
> that points to information on how to:
> - download the latest boost version and
> - use an existing external config or
> - implement and submit a new external config.
> 
> The current <boost/config.hpp> would be supported for the
> implementations that it currently supports. When new versions of
> implementations become available, they would switch to using an
> external config exclusively.
> 
> The current <boost/config.hpp> would be changed to a dispatching
> config. The dispatch code would dispatch to an external config for
> the platform. This way it would be possible for a user to avoid the
> problems caused by updates to the current <boost/config.hpp> by
> explicitly making sure that the external config is used directly.
[TRUNCATE]

Could you give us an example "config.hpp" and matching "config" subdirectory
(just one or two configuration files), possibly in the vault?

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com