Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-10 06:10:04

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> The C++ Standards Committee met last week in Berlin, Germany. Of interest
>> to
>> Boosters:
> Thx for the update -- interesting as usual. Looks like the committee
> was busy!
>> * A Boost Date-Time query was presented at the last meeting, and LWG
>> members
>> again in Berlin indicated interest in seeing a full proposal for TR2.
> The complete date-time proposal will be available for Portland and I
> expect to be at the meeting as well.


>> * A Boost Networking [asio] query was presented, and the LWG has
>> indicated
>> their interest in a full proposal for TR2. The developer of a competing
>> proposal has graciously thrown his support behind the Boost proposal, and
>> may propose some additional higher level functionality.
> I have some interest and concerns about the asio as a pure networking
> proposal -- it's really an io library proposal with networking. As
> such, there are some issues not currently addressed by the library that
> I can see the committee being worried about. In any case, I can see
> Chris needing a helping hand to get this done in time -- presuming that
> he is still able to pursue this deadline.

N1974 Boost Network Library Query from Chris will appear in the post-meeting
mailing, which will be available in two or three weeks. Chris was aware of
the October deadline at the time he wrote his query.

> Can you point us to the competing proposal/developer?

> I'd still really like to see a database binding library make it into
> TR2. Not having this is killing C++ against Java for application
> developers. We've had some periodic fits and starts, but it seems clear
> we won't have a Boost library by then. I'd still like to see someone
> with some time step up and take this on. It's been done about 10 times
> so I think a proposal could be gleaned from the best of the current
> bindings...

My guess is the LWG and the committee would welcome such a proposal. Note
that the October meeting deadline is for a proposal that includes proposed
wording for the TR. The wording does not have to be 100% complete - as long
as it is pretty good it would be sufficient to meet the October deadline.

The LWG would almost certainly require a reference implementation, and some
actual use in real-world applications, but that doesn't have to have
happened by October as long as the proposal in generally based on existing
practice. If a reference implementation was available on Boost and starting
to get real-world use by spring 2007, that should be good enough if the
library looks good otherwise.


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