Re: [boost] A set of individual libraries vs. One big library

Subject: Re: [boost] A set of individual libraries vs. One big library
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-19 13:38:52

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Anis Benyelloul
<anis.benyelloul_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if there was any interest into making the boost libraries
> more ``independent''?
>
> Boost contains many libraries with very different application domains. In
> most cases you'll want to use only one/two libraries in your project

Let's say that somehow you manage to separate Boost into a bunch of
libraries. Consider a situation where Boost library A uses only a
single header file from another (large) Boost library B. Doesn't your
original reasoning apply? Shouldn't that single header file be a
separate library (since -- obviously -- it makes sense on its own)?

You could go for a system where a C++ cpp/header pair is the only
logical unit. Such a unit would contain the minimum declarations and
definitions that can possibly exist on their own.

But this is pretty much how the header-only libraries in Boost are
organized. :) For example, if you need to use shared_ptr.hpp you just
#include it; if you need weak_ptr.hpp, you don't care if it's part of
the Boost smart pointer "library", you just #include it when needed.

>From this point of view, the solution is a tool that can automatically
extract the minimum subset of Boost that you need. The reason why this
is not practical is that you can't mix and match units from different
Boost versions. Therefore, the only way Boost can be distributed is as
a single giant release.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode