Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-30 19:46:20
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015, Gruenke,Matt wrote:
> This obviously isn't a proper review, and shouldn't be counted as such.
> Rather, I pose a question to other reviewers: for how many of you does
> this actually solve a problem you've faced or anticipate? For me, the
> answer is "no". Otherwise, I'd invest further time in a proper review.
This is exactly what I feel. The answer is "no" for me too. This is
also the reason why I haven't submitted a formal review.
I was interested in Boost having an asynchronous file I/O library and
was looking forward to reviewing AFIO because of all the discussion on
the list previously about performance. What I was expecting was also a
portable abstraction over platform specific APIs like KAIO or
I'm a big fan of libraries that challenge expectations: I wouldn't
object to hearing "This is the <library> that you need, not the
<library> that you want". In fact that notion is exciting. There was
just nothing exciting about AFIO to me.
I can't answer the question "Does anyone else need AFIO?" with any
degree of confidence. Niall has said there is a market for AFIO, but
that it is very niche and not well represented in the Boost community.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk