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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 14:44:58

On 3 Jun 2009, at 18:10, Emil Dotchevski wrote:

> 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.

I'm certainly not suggesting that a separate libraries be removed. Any  
user who wants separate libraries for reduced space can use the  
existing ones.

Chris