Re: [boost] Interest in a FIX Protocol Library?

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a FIX Protocol Library?
From: Sergey Cheban (sergey.cheban_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-15 18:38:14

16.01.2015 0:10, Robert Ramey wrote:

>> 1. The library size does matter.
> The above is predicated that Distribution of Boost Libraries will continue
> indefinately to be distributed as a complete package.  Our recent efforts
> including modularization, reduction of dependencies, etc. will eventually
> result in a deployment model in which acceptance into boost and
> deployment will be decoupled.  Users will install subsets of boost that
> they actually use.
Well, we can invite some libraries into Boost after modularization. Or, 
someone could try to implement the boost.finance as a module for the 
modularized Boost.

> So I think that trying too keep boost small - though attractive - doesn't
> look forward to the future.  I think the main challenge to Boost and C++
> in the future is to find a way to produce better quality libraries.
It's not about keeping the library small. It's about benefits and costs 
of the decision to include a library into the Boost. Even after 
modularization, the costs will not completely disappear.

For those who wants just a set of independently maintained modules, we 
already have Github.

>> 2. The boost community has to support everything that is included into
>> the boost library. What if a maintainer of some library abandons it? For
>> a general-purpose library, there are chances that someone will take
>> responsibility for it. For a domain-specific library, such chances seem
>> to be negligible.
>
> True - and we need to find a way to address that.  But that's no reason
> for keeping the library small or letting it grow - it's a different
> question.
Good, big, cheap. Choose 2 of 3.
Boost is cheap. I'd like it to be rather good than big.

-- 
Best regards,
Sergey Cheban