Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-24 13:24:04

I'm curious as to the to boost policy in a situation similar to the

Given the serialization library in its current state.

Someone creates a special kind of archive - called edit_[io]archive which
works something like this:

// create/obtain a tree control suitable for hierarchical data editing
?::archive_tree_control tc(..);
// create an edit archive
boost::archive::edit_oarchive eo(tc);
// initialize the tree control with the data as described by serialization
eo << my_data;

... user edits tree control - when he's done and hit OK

// reload data from tree control
// create an input archive from the tree control
boost::archive::edit_iarchive ei(tc);

ei >> my_data;

This is concievably useful application. Now when it comes the

// common interface for all GUI platforms/libraries
namespace ? {
    class archive_tree_control{
} // ?

// MFC implementation
#include <stdafx.h> // MFC headers which included windows.h and a lot more

namespace ? {
    class archive_mfc_tree_control : // refinement of MFC standard control
        public archive_tree_control,
        public CTreeControl
    { ...


Assuming that something like this could be made to work - where would it fit
boost - if at all.

It depends upon proprietary code - MFC - Hmmm but then all our code depends
upon compilers - many of which are proprietary code.

It depends upon a proprietary libary interface - MFC - Maybe that would be
issue - but the code itself would be subject to a boost license.

I don't see a way to test it in a way that is compatible with boost

Its inherently non-portable. That might be the deal breaker.

I guess the question would be: What is the status of code which follows the
license but depends upon code which doesn't follow the boost license?

Robert Ramey

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