Re: [boost] Request for Interest in several Modules

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for Interest in several Modules
From: Christof Donat (cd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-10 12:53:17

Hi,

>> For the DB connectivity I wondered, why your result
>> objects don't provide the input iterator interface,
>> but next() and fetch() instead. I guess, there is a
>> good reason, but I'd like to know it.
>>
>
> There are several reasons.
>
> [...]
> Basically I had seem several SQL libraries with iterator interface
> and it felt unnatural and abused,

OK, I have not tried, it would just have been my first idea for an 
interface there. The good thing about using iterators is, that you could 
also use STL and boost algorithms and with C++11 range based for loops 
on it, but maybe that is less of an advantage when you have SQL at hand.

> So between the choice of creating unnatural API with side effects
> or clear but less "modern-C++-style-API" I had chosen the second.

OK. I did not want to question your choice, but to understand your 
reasons. Thanks for your explanation.

>> I already had a look into your cppcms a while ago, which I mostly 
>> liked.
>> Sadly I did not really get around to try and write an application 
>> with it.
>> The biggest drawback for me is the use of "booster" instead of 
>> boost.
>> I know that there might me situations where a stable ABI is 
>> important,
>> but for me it is not. So I'd prefer to simply use boost there.
>> Do you think, there might be a compile time option to chose either?
>
> First of all Booster is very far from Boost. It has **some** boost 
> like
> classes and many others with different semantics. So it is not

OK, I understood the documentation, that booster is very similar to 
boost, but with the ABI as stable as possible. Seems like I 
misunderstood it there.

> "copy-paste" replaceable especially parts like Booster.AIO that
> shared general ideas with ASIO but solves some very critical
> problems that exist in ASIO from my point of view.

Of course I'd like to learn about these problems. Eventually there ist 
also a way to improve boost accordingly.

> Finally you don't use almost any of them most of the with some very 
> special
> exceptions... And nothing prevents from you to use Boost whatever
> version and type you like.

Sure. I just think, that using two different libraries that serve 
almost the same purpose in one application is a little bit suboptimal. 
So maybe my judgement was based on the - as I have learned now - wrong 
assumption that booster is mostly a copy of some boost libraries.

Christof

-- 
okunah gmbh                                  Software nach Maß
Werner-Haas-Str. 8                               www.okunah.de
86153 Augsburg                                    cd_at_[hidden]
                                       Registergericht Augsburg
Geschäftsführer                             Augsburg HRB 21896
Christof Donat                           UStID: DE 248 815 055