Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit -> serialization)
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-15 17:41:44

Le 15/06/14 17:16, Paul A. Bristow a écrit :
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
>> Sent: 15 June 2014 12:46
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit -> serialization)
>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Le 15/06/14 12:48, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>>>> The approach of extracting glue headers to separate submodules is
>>>> not scalable. We have many other libraries using the same approach
>>>> to optional dependencies.
>>> Why? I don't see why I would depend on Serialization if I don't use it
>>> even if I use DateTime. IMHO, it is up to the client of the
>>> serialization of the DateTime types to use the DateTime.Serialization
> sub-module.
>>> What others think?
>> I think that Vicente is right in this case. Moving serialization support to a
> submodule
>> of DateTime will make the dependency report nicer _and_ it will actually be
> correct
>> from the perspective of an automatic downloader. If you use DateTime, you'll
> get
>> the DateTime repo, along with the serialization support, but you will not get
> the
>> Serialization repo (and its dependencies) if you don't use Serialization. And
> this is
>> exactly as it should be, unless I'm missing something subtle.
>> It seems to me that this is a legitimate use of sub-sub-modules.
> I've followed this thread with interest and general support, but there is one
> factor that doesn't seem to be 'factored-in' in.
> If someone is using Serialisation then isn't there a very high probability that
> they are also using DateTime?
> So having these in the same package doesn't really matter (except for the
> artificial level number)?
> Looking at the shrink-wrap users, I have a suspicion that this applies quite
> widely - many people will manage to pull in a big chunk of Boost.
> Rearranging the modules isn't going to change this much.
> Sub-sub-modules sound Very Evil to me.
> KISS applies?
KISS <=> without cycles


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