Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in Remote Procedure Call Library?
From: Stephan Menzel (stephan.menzel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-08 02:58:12
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Daniel Larimer <dlarimer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> So I need to get some more support to convince my employer that this will be a good move. Active interest would be a good sign. Other ideas on the positive aspects of contributing vs keeping it internal would also help me make my case.
Just a few words from my side.
We have built a quite similar library just recently here. What proved
essential and appeared to be missing in you draft is support for
multiple languages. Our library here can offer methods in C++ and Java
and can be called from clients in C++, Java and Python. Which turned
out a very good thing. Given there's plenty of such solutions around I
suggest you consider multilanguage support for yours. I believe
there's no point in developing such a lib without that nowadays.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk