Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-20 17:02:02

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:04:10 +0100, Andrey Semashev
<andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]3. Monolithic design.
> [...]I admit that the more I think of this part, the more it looks
> connected to the review system. I even think that dividing libraries
> into several layers (e.g. gold, silver and bronze), with each layer
> having the different requirements for entering, could help both the
> development and the users. It would be easier for the developers and
> review managers to bring new libraries into the bronze layer, while the
> users will know which libraries are the most stable and polished ones
> (specifically, the ones from the gold layer).

I also believe that there is not really a problem with the monolithic
design. From a deployment point of view it can't be much easier than now:
Download a ZIP file every three months and run bjam to build and install
everything - done (assuming that you have figured out how this process
works in detail; but that's not a design issue either; maybe there is a
just a simple graphical installation wizard missing - then noone would
need to care about all those bjam command line options?).

Anyway if I imagine I have to search for components, figure out
dependencies and try to find compatible versions I definitely prefer to
download one package with everything which works out of the box. I might
waste space on my hard disk as I don't need each and every library either.
But I'd still prefer to do this than wasting time trying to setup my
personal Boost distribution (I can imagine a perfect web-based tool which
does all of this automatically; but this would require development and
maintenance effort, too).


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at