From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-17 04:04:20
Jeff Garland wrote:
> Yeah, I know you are trying to extend the original work, but as a
> group it doesn't seem like we have that focus. Also, I wasn't sure
> if you were going to look at Hugo's initial implementation or not.
> At the end of the day, I, like Doug, don't really care where or how
> the code appears -- so if people want to abandon Hugo's initial
> effort that's fine, but it would seem like a shorter path to build on
> the original work. I haven't looked at the new stuff in the sandbox
> or read the other thread yet...
I went through all Wiki pages about Boost.Socket and Boost.Multiplexing
including the ones set up by Hugo. I didn't look however at his
implementation for reasons I explained in another mail (see
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/121743). I am sure we
will not create anything new which has never been done before - so we might
reuse Hugo's or anyone's source code. I don't care neither about who
implements the library. However I would like to see decisions about the
design first before anyone starts implementing. Hugo created eg. an acceptor
and connector but there is a discussion going on between Michel and me in
another thread what they really should be used for (see eg.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/121908). I try to
summarize what is discussed in this list at
the end of the day we should have a long list of requirements and lots of
links into this list for explanations. The summary of design decisions and
explanations should help to avoid that one day we start all over again
because everything is questioned. As noone knows why Hugo designed his
library the way he did I don't think it should be used as a base.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk