[boost] Re: FSM Review

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-12 00:19:50

> I'm glad to see someone actually use a 'conditional accept' clause -- 
because
> it seemed like we had an awful lot of 'mostly good stuff, but I reject
because
> it won't work for me because of <fill in reason here>' reviews -- where
> 'performance' seems to be the biggest reason.  And Jody, I with you in
that,
> I'm not certain that without a code generator there is a solution that
> balances all the forces such multiple translation units (essential for
> real-world use), performance, scalability, etc.  So if we reject the
library
> now, we shut out the C++ community that would use the library in current
form
> in the hope that Andreas will keep working in hopes of an optimum solution
to
> all the design tradeoffs.  If one doesn't appear or Andreas is discourage
then
> one group will suffer at the expense of this pursuit.  I really feel this
is
> the wrong path. As an analogy, I don't want to give up std::string just
> because it isn't performant enough to handle all string processing
needs...
>
> Jeff

On the other hand ....

1. Boost is about Excellency
2. Nothing prevent usage of the library. It's accessible. And in this
particular case I noticed several support request in users ML
3. As well as rejection may lead to discouraging further efforts, so could
acceptance do. Could you expect any major issues to be resolved once library
is delivered?
4. In numerous case attempts to address any major issues results in complete
new interface/design/implementation. Any users relying on accepted version
would be disappointed. Also It most probable wont going to be reviewed as
well (as it should be)
5. I really-really with somebody spent more time with std::string on drawing
board. Maybe we wouldn't have as much issues now. Even worse now everybody
kinda required to accommodate it's existing interface and, for example, this
#^*%ing traits template parameter is spreading like plague around numerous
designs.

As a compromise for the situation like this we could introduce new
section/area: "Unofficial libraries" where we could place those
"complete/finished" submissions that did not passed a review (yet or again).
Maybe some other staff.

Regards,

Gennadiy