Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Extract xml_archive from serialization
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-17 07:29:07
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 09:42:25 Robert Ramey wrote:
>> most date/time users don't use this - but a few do. Is serialization a
>> prerequisite for date/time? which users are we talking about? One can't
>> win here. If you distribute serialization with every use of date/time
>> you're distributing too much. If you don't, you'll be failing to ship
>> functionality which some users need. What is the solution here - make
>> two libraries out of date/time? or what?
> The solution will be to separate the dependency on Serialization into an
> optional component. This can be a header or a git submodule or a sublib in
> DateTime or something else. What exactly this is is defined by a number of
> aspects, including maintenance convenience, access control, distribution
> and deployment infrastructure. I agree that many of these aspects are not
> defined at the moment, but from the perspective of maintenance, access
> permissions and modularization effort a sublib looks most feasible to me.
Having tens of tiny 1/2/3 file 'sublibs' is not good.
>> c) serialization of other library components - e.g. shared_ptr - which
>> depends on share_ptr itself.
> These are probably the best candidates for separating from the core.
However, they do little to affect the dependency graph.
I keep prioritizing things that affect the dependencies the most. Currently
that's the serialization->spirit edge and the range->algorithm edge.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk