Boost logo

Boost :

From: Darren Garvey (lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-19 15:27:08

On 19/08/07, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I like the cgi::xcgi_service scheme and the cgi::service
> typedef'ing depending on what headers are included. How about just
> providing
> xcgi::service? Then the appropriate protocol can be chosen via 'using
> namespace xcgi' or 'namespace cgi = xcgi'.

This is something I've been meaning to get feedback on, actually. The
problem with giving things their own namespace is IMO it gets a bit
ugly, for example:

boost::cgi::fcgi::service service;

The thing I've been wondering is about a single library dumping more than
one namespace into the boost namespace, so you'd have boost::cgi,
boost::fcgi and boost::scgi. I guessed that idea would be shot down in
flames though.

Why do you not like the typedef-header scheme? Too fickle?


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