Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-08 18:23:10

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Jeremiah Willcock <jewillco_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2012, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As we head toward a modularized Boost, Daniel Pfeifer we on the Ryppl
>> project would like confirmation that we've correctly (or at least
>> sensibly, when there's no obvious "correct") identified the module
>> boundaries in Boost's monolithic SVN repository.  If library authors
>> could take a few moments to examine the contents of your library's repo
>> at https://github.com/boost-lib, and let us know, we'd be most grateful.
>
>
> graph and graph_parallel are fine; property_map is reasonable except that
> the things that are in include/boost/pending should be in that directory in
> graph/ instead.  Does it make sense to modularize utility to split things
> like enable_if out into separate trees like you are doing at the top level
> of Boost?

Daniel Pfeifer and the other Ryppl folks have already done a some
minor rationalization where a few minor components were clearly in the
wrong spot. See boost-root/libs/core. Utility may well need some
further refactoring, which can take the form of additional
sub-directories as well as additional sub-modules. Years ago John
Maddock had some guidelines on directory tree branchiness. The idea
was that both too few and too many were less than helpful. I'm
guessing sub-modules are similar - too few and the full benefits of
modularization are not obtained, too many and confusion or other costs
may overwhelm benefits.

--Beman