From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-04 13:45:39
> I'm not sure about Boost.MPI, but I thought it was not a wrapper of a
> single library, but of a standard API that can be implemented by
> different libraries. Boost.Regex is not a wrapper at all; it
> implements regular expressions from scratch. asio::ssl is not a
> library but a plugin for Boost.ASIO that provides one small piece of
> functionality compared to the rest of the library. Boost.Python is
> probably closest to an exception, although it is a binding to another
> language (not a library), which arguably only has one C API and
> implementation. Yes, there is CPython, but I don't believe it offers a
> C API.
This line of discussion between us is now moot. The author has confirmed
that the implementation of the mysql protocol is original work.
I don't think the amount of contributions by itself is the goal. There
> has to be value associated with the contribution. I just don't think a
> C++ wrapper of a specific library has enough value.
I for one have needed a good async mysql database layer on two occasions in
The first time I wrote a minimal wrapper around the c mysql libs (the c++
one is awful).
The second time I used amy, which is not fully asio compliant (it doesn't
support coroutines or futures).
As a user of boost for over ten years, I would have benefitted greatly from
a library like this being in boost.
I am not alone.
Talking to MySQL is a fundamental operation in the web world, which
represents a huge chunk of programming effort.
It seems a no-brainer to me that a well maintained means of efficiently
doing so would be a positive addition to boost.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- Richard Hodges hodges.r_at_[hidden] office: +442032898513 home: +376841522 mobile: +376380212
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk