Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-18 00:01:12

On 10/17/2013 6:24 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Hi there,
> my plan for modularizing and modernizing Boost was roughly this:
> * Phase 0 - remove dead weight by bumping compiler feature requirements
> * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a
> mostly directed graph

I disagree with the idea that dependencies should be reduced unless
there is a better reason than just analyzing a directed graph.

Once you start moving code just to reduce dependencies you may actually
end increasing dependencies for end-users. The typical situation showing
this is:

Library AAA depends on Library BBB and nothing else in Boost currently
depends on library BBB so you decide to move library BBB into library
AAA to reduce a dependency. Now you have the end-user who uses library
BBB in his code. After the move the end-user now depends on library AAA,
but library AAA may is now bigger than before and if it is a library
which must be built the end-user must ship a much larger shared library
even though he may only need a small part of a library. Even if library
BBB is only a header only library why should the user of library BBB
have to know about library AAA to use just the part of library BBB he
used before ?

This need you feel to glob together libraries and/or pieces of libraries
for the abstract goal of reducing dependencies is just wrong IMO.

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