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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk