Subject: [boost] [boost.process] 0.6 Alpha
From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemens.morgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 15:52:00
the boost.process 0.6 library is now in alpha, that is: it has some
(compiling) examples, a documentation and tests that pass on windows as
well as on linux.
It basically allows you to manage a process like this:
child c("some_prog", "--some-arg", env["PATH"]+="C:/stuff", std_in <
"data.csv", std_out > pipe, std_err > null, start_dir="./bin");
pipe >> data;
cout << c.exit_code() << endl;
You can find the documentation here:
Get the source code from here:
If you want to use it on windows, you currently would need to clone my
boost.winapi fork also: https://github.com/klemens-morgenstern/winapi
As for the scope of the library, it is meant to implement a small,
portable layer to allow platform-independent process management. Thereby
it's functionality is (unless I missed something) basically what is
possible on posix as well as on windows. There are some platform
extension, but I would not recommend to use them. It is also possible
(though not yet documented) to write extensions, and if they work on
both platforms I will gladly add them.
It is however not the goal of the library, to be the be-all and end-all
of process management; in past disscussions, different ideas where
brought up, like implementing a DSEL for that or only allowing
asynchronous communication. This library will never be that, since it
would be much more fitting to build this on-top of it. E.g. a DSEL could
be written (e.g. boost.shell) using boost.process underneath, so the
library could concentrate only on the DSEL.
It doesn't depend on boost.iostreams anymore, though it still uses
boost.asio, boost.fusion and boost.filesystem.
As for the open issues: some error handling is still lacking (but that'd
be something like being unable to duplicate a handle), which would be
required for proper extension, which is also why it's not documented.
Also there's still an open discussion about the naming of the class and
functions (child, system, spawn), so that may change also. But I
consider this simple enough for a easy refactoring. If anyone has naming
ideas, please tell me. One Idea was 'subprocess' but
'process::subprocess' just looks too strange to me.
I hope you try it out, and give me some feedbacks. Or write angry error
reports, both helps.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk