Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-01 17:51:07

On 01.09.2010 23:54, Boris Schaeling wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:47:27 +0200, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> 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..."
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/development/reuse.html
>
> 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?

Actually, I wasn't thinking about such developers, but about compilation
time (lexical cast and algo.str), portability and stability
(filesystem).

> 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?

The dependencies I object to are easy to avoid.