Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-01 15:54:20

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:47:27 +0200, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]>

> [...]
>> Regarding the header files above: I wonder whether it makes sense to get
>> rid of actual helpful functions like boost::algorithm::ends_with() only
>> to remove a dependency on another Boost library. I understand the case
>> about Boost.Filesystem which requires to be built. But it's a kind of
>> strange goal for Boost libraries to reuse as little code as possible
>> from other Boost libraries?
> "Negative effects of coupling become obvious when one library uses a
> second library which uses a third, and so on. The worst form of coupling
> requires the user understand each of the coupled libraries. Coupling may
> also reduce the portability of a library - even in case when all used
> libraries are self-sufficient..."

I quote then the paragraph starting with "The benefits of using components
 from other libraries...". ;)

Anyway, while it all sounds good in theory how many developers are out
there trying to use single Boost libraries without installing the others?
It sounds like a bit too much effort reinventing what has been implemented
in other Boost libraries for what I expect is a relatively small group of
developers? I heard much more often that developers didn't want to build
libraries but simply include header files. That said I wouldn't mind to
drop the dependency on Boost.Filesystem as currenly it is indeed only used
because of an exception class. As I think this is the right class to use
though design decisions will then be affected by library dependencies! Are
we sure that we want this?


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