From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-22 00:28:05
"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Make up you mind finally. What is your library?
>> 1. Runtime parameter facility
>> 2. Permanent storage facility
>> 3. XML parser
> I'm afraid it is all 3, plus some more. By "some more" I mean it has more
> parsers than just XML, and it can also be used to manipulate hierarchical,
> human readable data structures at runtime.
And that's the main problem with this submission. Instead of clearly
specified problem domain and design that address issue in this domain, you
present some mixture of half-good components each with unclear advantages
over existing dedicated solution in each respective area. I want faster
search or no search at all - no can do. I want different some versioning
support for permanent storage - no can do. I want some automatic validation
and conflict resolution - no can do. I understand it's good enough for you.
But this is just the choices you made. Coupling solution for independent
problems under the hood on one library is the source of inflexibility and
unacceptable for boost IMO. We do need good tree storage. We do need better
runtime parameters support library (IMO). We already have quite powerful
solution for permanent storage support, but we could use more archive
formats for it. What you propose is none of it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk