From: Matthew Vogt (mattvogt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-13 03:21:13
David Abrahams wrote:
> The serialization library is a beautiful example of how a rejection
> ended up being very positive for the library and for Boost. Whether
> or not that experience can be replicated is another question. It was
> certainly not easy for Robert.
If my hazy recollections are right, the initial serialization library review
brought up various criticisms of the library, which had been solved by other
libraries, or for which useful techniques were known and could be applied.
This library seems to differ - it appears that there are criticisms of the
library's performance characteristics, but no-one is pointing to alternative
libraries that solve these problems (albeit they may be deficient in other
ways). Similarly, I haven't noticed any suggestions for specific techniques
that might be used to improve the performance of the current submission.
Also, (albeit without much familiarity with state machines) I don't believe that
the library should be rejected due to a lack of generality. If the solution is
a non-starter for significant groups of potential users, then it will not be a
hindrance in the development of other state machine libraries with different
goals (or the same goals and better implementation). The people who need
performance above features can continue to develop their high-performance
solutions, hopefully to the eventual standard required for boost acceptance.
Apologies to Andreas that I am not sufficiently qualified to submit a review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk