Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Refactoring a library for header-only or linked library?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-01 10:59:28

Le 01/04/12 10:54, Paul A. Bristow a écrit :
> I am considering refactoring a (potential Boost) library separating declarations and definitions
> into two sets of files with the objective of reducing compilation times and allow it to be used as
> header-only or linking with a pre-built library.
> Is there is best/Boost way of doing this?
> Is there a Boost library that I should use as a model? ASIO?
> Should I call the definition files .cpp or .ipp?
The definitions should be on a header file and .ipp or .hpp is good for
me. Boost.Chrono uses .hpp header files.
> Should definition files go in libs/src or in boost/?
Boost.Chrono includes them in boost/chrono/detail/inlined directory.
libs/xxx/src should not work as an installer don't need to install this
> How should I control the header-only/library switch?
Boost.Chrono uses a macro to BOOST_CHRONO_HEADER_ONLY as the goal was to
make the library header-only.

#include <boost/config/abi_suffix.hpp> // pops abi_prefix.hpp pragmas
#include <boost/chrono/detail/inlined/chrono.hpp>

The config.hpp file contains

#define BOOST_CHRONO_INLINE inline
#define BOOST_CHRONO_STATIC inline

#define BOOST_CHRONO_STATIC static

Note that this has some relation with the macros BOOST_XXX_STATIC_LINK
and BOOST_XXX_DYN_LINK which are exclusive.

Your goal been different the macro should be named differently. In
addition what is the default also need to be taken in account.

In the case of Boosy.Chrono I prefered to state explicitly the intent of
the User via BOOST_CHRONO_HEADER_ONLY even if it could be deduced when


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