Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization

Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 13:10:35

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 2) Why not provide a 'libboost' which includes all the libraries
>> linked together. If they are dynamically linked this shouldn't create
>> a large overhead.
>
> Actually, this is an interesting new idea. At least, it would make several
> things simpler. Boost historically allows users to use parts of it without
> having the whole forced upon them, I guess some people see this as an
> important feature. However, the global boost-all library wouldn't prevent
> that, it would just be an alternative. I would create a TRAC ticket for that,
> at least that would serve as central collection point for the pros and cons of
> that design.

Read the subject line. I wouldn't call piling everything together
modularization. :)

Also, wouldn't this increase the size of the executable? I'm not an
expert but I think that by default GCC doesn't remove unused code
because a .so loaded later could try to link with it. This would put
even more pressure on making libraries header-only.

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