Re: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit -> serialization)

Subject: Re: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit -> serialization)
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-15 19:51:05

Andrey Semashev wrote:

> On Sunday 15 June 2014 23:45:37 Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
>> I just caught up with this discussion, and based on what I read I
>> think the future automated dependency handler should indeed operate on
>> a per-header basis. This would mean that the configuration file of a
>> module would list all headers in the module, and for each header in
>> the module list all headers that it directly depends on. Of course
>> still with support for conditional (e.g. tool-dependent) dependency
>> annotations. *Optional* dependencies however could then be detected
>> automatically, as I'll explain in my inline reply below.
> 
> Umm, I don't think that manually listing all headers and their dependencies in 
> a config file is a viable idea.

That is not the intention. The tool generates the file for you (when 
you ask for it). The file is still there so you can annotate it with 
tool conditions. Having a single file that lists all header 
dependencies also speeds up automated downloading, because the tool 
doesn't have to traverse your 235 headers but can find all 
information in one place.

The tool will also be able to update the file while respecting your 
annotations. It will also be invoked as a part of the regression 
tests to check that the file is complete.

See also http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2014/06/214429.php .

> I have 235 headers in Log and who knows how 
> many dependent headers. Even if that information is filled once, I can't 
> realistically guarantee that the config file stays actual as I work on the 
> library.
> 
> The list of headers and their dependencies should be inferred by the tool from 
> the headers themselves.

Yes.

> Maintainers should be able to provide only the missing 
> information - in particular, which headers are considered optional. Although, 
> if the tool works on the header basis, the whole idea of optional headers 
> becomes irrelevant - you don't include a header => you don't need its 
> dependencies.

Exactly. /Conditional/ dependencies are still relevant, however.

-Julian