From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-18 14:12:14
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 18 March 2008 10:24 am, Jeff Garland wrote:
> Why does it require a review -- isn't this just an extension of an existing
I'm not sure exactly where the threshold is for needing a review, so I'll just
list some reasons it might need one.
* There is an author change, and the new author (me) has never submitted a lib
to boost before. A few of the headers in thread_safe_signals did start as
copies of boost.signals headers, but it's mostly a new implementation.
* The scheme for managing connections is different, people should probably
have an opportunity to disparage it before it gets forced on them. There are
also some new classes for supporting postconstructors/predestructors (which
may not be needed after all, if I can get my changes to
* It's not fully backwards compatible. I dropped the old connection
management scheme (boost::trackable and visit_each) entirely. It could be
made to be (almost) fully backward compatiible for source code, if that's
deemed necessary. However, it's also been pointed out that now may be a good
time to do some namespace and header location rearrangement to bring signals
more into line with current boost policies. Actually, I'm already aware that
some of my new classes (postconstructible/deconstruct_ptr/etc.) that I dumped
into the boost namespace should be moved. It might be worth considering
continuing to provide the old boost.signals library for a transition period,
moving thread_safe_signals into a new namespace/header location entirely?
* thread_safe_signals is header-only, boost.signals is not. I'm sure some
people will see this as a change for the worse.
In any case, I'm certainly not in a position to start ripping out
boost.signals and replacing it with my code, until there has been some kind
of review or blessing given to me to do so. Doug gave encouragment to embark
on the project originally, but I don't think he's ever given any official
stamp of approval to the final implementation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----