Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 07:09:11


Hello, I want to bring up an important issue that boost developers are not aware of: anybody who develops a library and wants to keep any kind of backward compatibility can-not use Boost. Issue, let's assume I want to develop a small library that keeps backward comparability well. Let's assume I want to use `boost::shared_ptr` as one of the most important parts of boost in my library interface... Impossible. why? Even, for such a small part of boost with stable (even tr1) definitions it is impossible to promise that it would not be broken between releases. Why boost::details::sp_counted_base may be changed because in next version atomic counter was implemented using assembly rather then pthread's mutex... which affects the layout of boost::details::sp_counted_base and thus breaks compatibility. That is not a first time I bring up this issue. But at this point I started to bring a some kind of solution. I do need boost for my FOSS project CppCMS <http://cppcms.sf.net>. I was trying for a long period use renamed version of Boost (with a small tool I written similar to BCP's renamer) inside the library not showing the interface outside but finally I realized that I need boost in interface. I need ASIO, I need shared_ptr, I need regex, I need thread and much more... So I created a small library I called "booster" as part of CppCMS project that has a goal - provide backward compatible and stable boost like library that can be used by other libraries. It has following libraries: - smart_ptr: intrusive_ptr, shared_ptr, - function - locale (full copy of Boost.Locale I develop) - regex (pcre-wrapper, no replace functionality, no wide api) - system (meanwhile without error_condition) - thread (partial) - aio - my own ASIO like library. - ptime - Posix time (very different from boost one) For this purposes I did: - Adopted some of boost code to booster (shared_ptr/intrusive_ptr)   and made sure that it would not break ABI with internal changes. - Wrapped pthreads with boost.thread like interface (in any case   boost.thread is more like pthreads with C++ interface).   So under windows it requires pthreads-win32 library. - I wrapped pcre library with boost.regex like interface. - I had written my own Boost.Asio like library (Booster.AIO) that   has very limited use of templates.   It uses epoll/devpoll/kqueue where available and poll or select on   other platforms (no IOCP as it adds many limitations). - It uses CMake instead of Boost.Build. - It supports **only** modern compilers: gcc>=3.4, MSVC-2008   (2005 should work as well, but not tested), intel 11 compiler. - It is little bit less Windows friendly then Boost - no auto-link, no wide api, no IOCP support. Believe me it wasn't simple decision to start writing this library. But I just had no other choice. ------------------------------------------------ The source code can be found there (svn): https://cppcms.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/cppcms/framework/branches/refactoring/booster - I do not encourage anybody use it over boost, but if you have   similar problems with boost as I have, you are welcome to take   a look on it, try it. - I do think that boost is great library. - I would really prefer to use boost if it was not breaking ABI every   few month. - I would probably adopt more boost libraries into booster (where possible) ------------------------------------------------------------- I want boost community to think about it... Is it right that developers of many libraries can't use Boost. Think of GTKmm, think of Qt, think of kdelib - that no-one can use it just because they promise backward compatibility. Maybe there is something wrong with it? Artyom.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk