Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-23 19:21:02

Stephen Kelly-2 wrote
> Is something similar to this a goal or a non-goal for 'Boost 
> modularization'?

I'm still collecting my thoughts on this.  I believe it is a very, very
important
question related to the future of boost.  Your succinct expression of the 
question is very useful.

I'm envisioning a "Boost of the Future"  This future is different than the
present:

a) The C++ standard library is deemed "feature complete" in that relatively
new libraries are added only infrequently.  This would be because most
proposals for new
additions would be of such narrow usage that vendors would be reluctant
to commit to building and supporting them given the few users which
would benefit.

b) C++ continues to resurge as the vehicle for making portable, fast and
robust applications.  There is no competitor on the horizon and major
vendors have climbed on board.  Hence, demand for new libraries will
have to increase.

c) This will provoke a wave of half-finished, half maintained, and code
libraries.
The key role of Boost will be collect, certify and filter these libraries to
maintain
the high standards for which Boost has become famous. I envision Boost
growing to 500 libraries over the next 10 years.

d) Our monolithic deployment system is becoming a bottleneck and does not
scale.  We want and need to address this.

So I guess the answer to your question is basically "yes".  The difficulty
it
that implementing this is a bigger thing that meets the eye. I'm hoping we
can find a way to do this

Robert Ramey

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/modularization-Are-modular-releases-a-goal-or-a-non-goal-tp4667684p4667867.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.