Re: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers

Subject: Re: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 10:43:05

Artyom wrote:
>> Sure, boost ABI changes from release to release but unless
>> you want to provide a "one-for-all" binary release of your
>> library, what is the issue? Even libstdc++ ABI changes every
>> now and then.
>>     
>
> Not correct. GCC keeps ABI since gcc-3.4... And this is 
> now about 6 years... Not bad?
>   
My point was that all libraries change sometimes. Frequencies vary, of 
course. I wonder what you'll say when libstdc++ changes the next time 
(and it will happen)?
>> You can still provide binaries for certain distributions.
>> For instance, Ubuntu-8.04 comes with boost-1.34 and
>> libstdc++.so.6. That won't change.
>>
>>     
>
> Yes, but debian comes with boost-1.35 and Ubuntu-8.10 would be with
> another version and maybe user wants to use
> in its application 1.42 and he can't because libfoo uses 1.35...
>   
Sure, that's what source distributions are for, IMHO :-)
>> I would try to avoid
>> a library that uses such pseudo-boost in its API instead of
>> the real thing,
>>     
>
> As I had written I do not encourage you using this. But I can't use
> anything else because I can't use boost!
>
> Believe me, writing this library is far from being my first choice.
>   
OK, but as a matter of fact, I was looking for a replacement of cakephp 
(not sure yet), and cppcms is on the list of candidates. If using cppcms 
would require using booster instead of boost, I would probably strike it 
from the list.
>> In addition, to be honest, personally  because I want to use boost,
>> not some
>> look-alike. I don't want to use the umpteenth version of a
>> smart pointer...
>>     
>
> Very good point. The shared_ptr I used is boost shared_ptr but
> instead of inline sp_counted_base I use compiled and linked
> sp_counted_base so I can change implementation without breaking
> binary compatibility. But it is still the same shared_ptr
>
> Small difference.
>   
OK, can I so something like the following?

boost::shared_ptr<int> a(new int(0));
booster::shared_ptr<int> b = a;

(replace shared_ptr with all the other boost-look-alike classes)

Regards,

Roland