Subject: Re: [boost] Question about Spirit architecture
From: Bernhard Merkle (bernhard.merkle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-26 10:06:36
Yes, that is the strict convention. However, I am no longer sure
> if that's strictly followed. When designing architectures like Spirit,
> I take it to task to do extensive analysis (create dependency graphs,
> etc.). However, typically, commits after commits somehow disrupt the
> convention, so I am no longer enirely sure if the strict adherence
> to the design still holds.
Thanks for your explanation and help.
I have found some minor violations between should- and is-architecture.
Maybe I could send the details as a report + a *.png graphics file offline ?
(I assume that attachments are not allowed on this list).
Some other questions which are very interesting:
- are there architectural documents for the other libraries ?
- which would be good candidates from your point of view ?
(I think e.g. analyzing dependencies to the mpl libs is interesting)
- is there a common rule which parts are public and which are private ?
(I saw some impl directories but am a bit unsure about the API stuff)
- is there a document describing the dependencies between the different libs
(the "should" architecture).
(I know of the bcp tool but this documents the "is"architecture essentially)
My initial post was the url below, but I got now answer yet
It describes a bit more the background and what I want to do...
thanks and kind regards,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk