[boost] hypothetical question regarding boost policy

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 
following:

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 
implementation:

// 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 
into
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 
the
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 
practices.

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 
boost
license but depends upon code which doesn't follow the boost license?

Robert Ramey