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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk