Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-08 13:48:29
On 8/8/15 10:06 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
> I can't speak for others, but I don't think anyone claimed the Handbook
> isn't useful. For me personally, the implications that this is a Boost
> blessed document rubs me the wrong way, just as libraries that call
> themselves Boost.Whatever without ever having been reviewed do.
lol - you're speaking for me!
I just wanted to point out the fact that the "best practices" doesn't
speak for boost. It's not that it says it does - but the way it's
presented might lead casual readers to assume that it does.
I can't really object to Nial's making his personal recommendations
available in this way. After all, I've done essentially the same thing
in www.blincubator.com. I'm just concerned that that placement and tone
suggest that it's the result of some consensus when it's not. Of course
one could argue that no one has had sufficiently strong opinion to
update/comment or whatever - but this is unconvincing to me. Most of
don't have time to argue against everything we don't agree with. This
seems like it's an exploit the boost "trademark" to enhance credibility
and audience beyond what it would otherwise have.
I don't want to dwell too much on the "best practices" wiki. I'm more
interested in looking at the larger picture of "Boost Web Presence".
There are a couple of things going on here.
a) There are many more opportunities to promote the Boost Mission than
there used to be.
b) There exists the ability to better integrate and promote user driven
content (such as Nail's).
c) How do we better integrate issue tracking to make it easier to use
and integrate with Modular Boost
d) there is the isocpp website - how should Boost complement,
collaborate, or perhaps counter this effort.
e) Boost content has grown topsy turvy over the last 15 years. There's
lot's of stuff that's outdated, lot's of stuff that's really useful but
hard to find. How do we organize all this information in a more
coherent way? And what technology can we leverage on to make it easier
to keep upto date.
f) Rene Rivera has been responsible for Boost infrastructure for many
years and has been very, very reliable in this area. But the
requirements for evolution of boost web presence have increased by a
lot. I notice that Rene has been taking on more responsibilities on
boost predef which is a not trivial exercise. Note all this is in
addition to the being responsible for boost build/test infrastructure.
Also I believe that he has a new job as well. I contacted Rene about
offloading the responsibility for the Boost Web presence and he seemed
receptive to the idea.
g) We had a meeting about this at C++Now and a weak consensus was
reached that we should be looking to evolve Boost Web Presence. Michael
Caisse generously agreed to lend resources of his organization to help
with this effort. It seems that his attempts to move in this direction
have been stymied due to forces beyond his control. I would like to see
progress on this front.
h) I had all this in mind when I made the boost library incubator. This
might be consider a place where ideas for Boost 2.0 are being
prototyped. Some ideas have been a disappointment, others seem useful.
I'm not sure of the future of the incubator - but for now it's not
urgent to decide as, once up and running, it's been surprisingly easy to
All in all, the boost web presence looks to me that it's stuck in 1999.
Reading this, I'm not sure it should be posted here - but then I'm not
sure where it should be posted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk