Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-23 21:49:25

"Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden]> wrote in message

> Also, the motivation for your own thread implementation is an all-header
> implementation of asio. Why do you need an all-header implementation?
> In the earlier requirements for a boost network library, NOT having an
> all-header implementation was one of the requirements.
> Personally, I do not like all-lheader implementations, especially for
> system related components. They pull way too much junk into the
> namespace, especially under any flavor of Windows (though linux has its
> own problems there as well). Lots of macros, and other junk to pollute
> and cause problems -- not to mention the additional compilation time...
> What's wrong with a library-based implementation?

I was one of the people asking for a library based solution.

While I do think that is important, for the reasons you mention, I also
think it is something that can be deferred.

If the design is strong, a lot of details can be refined over time. That
isn't to say that documentation and some of the other issues aren't
important for the review, but design is the critical issue.

If the design is weak, stuff like header versus library implementation
doesn't matter anyhow.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at