Re: [boost] [locale] Off-list review of Boost.Locale library

Subject: Re: [boost] [locale] Off-list review of Boost.Locale library
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-16 15:40:24

> 
> Translate GETTEXT might be better in a separate library to  increase
> degrees of freedom and reduce coupling.
> 

message translation is generally integrated part of localization, so I don't
see a reason to separate it.

Also, loading gettext dictionaries require locale information that only
boost.locale provides.

> 
> --- What is your  evaluation of the implementation?
> 
> The wrapper/backend strategy provides  immediate benefit while leaving
> the door open to progressive  reimplementation.
> 
> Since it is a wrapper, could PARTS of it be implemented  as a header
> only?
> 

Several points:

- It is not "just a wrapper" it is a wrapper over several APIs:

  - ICU
  - POSIX
  - Win32 API
  - std::locale API

- When you deal with locale facets you have to have 
  a unique object std::locale::id per facet and when working
  with DLL platform it means that you have to put it into DLL
  so it would be unique for all other dlls.

  So there is no way and no really a reason to do this.

- It is important for localization library to be lightweight
  in terms of compilation. Because it is  likely going to be
  used in many parts of code.

  So using light headers and heavy sources has important
  strategic impact on adopting this library.

> 
> 
> --- What is your  evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> 
> This library is  potentially *extremely* useful because it LEVERAGES an
> important chunk of  standard C++ that is sadly underutilised merely due
> to a few design and  implementation flaws.
> 
> This library has potential something of the order  of Boost.FileSystem.
> 
> This is a VERY strategic library and any  shortcomings will be resolved
> with time.
> 

I'm glad to hear.

> 
> 
> --- Do you think  the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
> 
> YES - It is relatively  small but has a massive effect. It has a very low
> cost/benefit ratio since it  leverages long standing classic C++ locale
> design/skills.
>

Thanks, for the review and the vote.

Artyom