Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Modularization criteria (was Re: Boost Modularization: did we get it right?)
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-21 18:14:44

Le 21/05/12 18:36, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
> on Sat May 12 2012, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba"<> wrote:
>> Le 08/05/12 13:44, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
>>> 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, and let us know, we'd be most grateful.
>>> Thanks!
>> Hi,
>> I guess that the answers to these question could be found somewhere,
>> but as we are discussing about whether the split is right or not I
>> would like to have some questions answered explicitly.
>> Which have been the criteria to split the Boost libraries in modulus?
> Mostly the split has been along the lines of categorization as separate
> libraries in the library documentation (i.e. "utility" is all one
> library). However, we've begun making some lower-level split-ups.
>> Could the dependencies between modulus contain cycles or should we
>> avoid them?
> You should avoid them. If avoiding them is impossible, we have a way to
> deal with it, but in general avoiding them means splitting up some
> libraries into separate parts, like the part that can be header-only and
> the part that needs binaries.
Have you found some cycles in the current split?
>> Do we have a tool to get the dependencies direct or indirect from a
>> modulo?
> is
> what we're using to generate correct dependency information in
> CMakeLists.txt files.
Could you give a link of the output of this program?


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