Re: [boost] Re: an xml-binary persistence library

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-18 06:42:24

Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> It turns out that ALL the issues raised in the review, including
> those that I dismissed, are being addressed. I didn't really intend
>  to do this  I had resolved to improve the quality of the implementation
>  and leave most of the feature decisions unchanged as I saw them 
> as ireconcilable trade offs.  I was much surprised to discover that
> improving the implementation made apparent that what I had
> thought were trade offs where in fact artifacts of implementation 
> stratagy decisions.  
>
> Note to potential library submitters: The boost review process is
> far more rigorous than what one is normally accustomed to and I
> suspect that few are really prepared for it.  On the other hand,
> I have no doubt that this the reason for the incredible high quality
> and utility  of the boost libraries.  The only thing I can't explain
> why anyone would subject himself to this. Yet here I am.

>From your previous paragraph it appears the process was highly
valuable and did exactly what it's supposed to do... you seem to have
survived it without being unduly discouraged, and you have even been
inspired to look at the problem domain more deeply and generally.  I'm
really glad to see that, and am really looking forward to the review
of your revised library!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com