Subject: Re: [boost] [asio-users] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http
From: VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira (vini.ipsmaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-15 12:19:04
2015-08-15 9:06 GMT-03:00 Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>:
> In fact, if you can achieve a more appropriate name choice, I'll
> change my vote from rejection to a conditional acceptance as you've
> done a great job in persuading me from where I was. You've impressed
> with me your awareness of the tradeoffs involved in a moving API
> environment, and though I severely personally disagree with your
> choice of Boost.ASIO over ASIO, I can also see that targeting a more
> stable API in the form of Boost.ASIO for now makes sense.
> How does that sound?
It sounds encouraging. I'm not that resistant to a change of name, but it
depends on the new name. I think I'd regret if I accept a name like
lowlevelhttp (or one that resembles the same idea) and the library gets
stuck with this image forever, even when I implement the high level APIs.
-- VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira https://about.me/vinipsmaker
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk