From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-28 15:24:47
The review period is extended to Sunday the 30th.
The original announcement may be found below.
-Thorsten, review manager
I have the great pleasure to announce that the formal boost-review of
Marcin Kalicinski Property Tree Library begins now (the 18th of April)
and runs through the 27th of April.
This fairly high-level library consists of the following
1. a generic recursive property-tree data-structure
2. generic conversions to/from this data-structure from/to
d. windows registry files
As an example of how powerful the library is, consider this
The library may be downloaded from
- the boost file vault http://boost-consulting.com/vault/
- tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/fkt7r
- boost sandbox: http://www.boost.org/more/mailing_lists.htm#sandbox
(look in boost/property_tree and libs/property_tree)
The documentation may be viewed online at
If your find the above interesting, please consider submitting a review
to the boost developer mailing list:
You might end up using several hours on a review, but the end result
could be a superb library that will save you weeks of work.
Notes for reviewers
When writing your review, you may wish to consider the following
* What is your evaluation of the design?
* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness
of the library?
* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
Did you have any problems?
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
* Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
And finally, every review should answer this question:
* Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments
don't obscure your overall opinion.
In particular, consider if you can answer the following questions:
- was the library suitable for your daily xml-tasks? If not, what was
- was the library's performance good enough? If not, can you suggest
- was the library's design flexible enough? If not, how would you
suggest it should be redesigned to broaden its scope of use?
Thorsten Ottosen, Review Manager
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk