- Boost-announce - lists.boost.org

[flyweight][review] Flyweight accepted
by Ion Gaztañaga 05 Feb '08

05 Feb '08

Hi to all, The Flyweight library submitted by Joaquín M. López Muñoz has been *accepted* into Boost. Thanks to all reviewers and all who contributed to the library before the review. We've received 10 reviews (Alberto Ganesh Barbati, David Sankel, John Reid, John Torjo, Kevin Scopp, Marcus Lindblom, Markus Werle, Matias Capeletto, Neil Hunt, Tim Blechmann), and all except Alberto's one were positive. Please, if I've missed a review, let me know. Joaquín agreed to address Alberto's comments (either with keyed_flyweight or by another method) and I like to encourage Joaquín and Alberto and the rest of the Boost community to improve the flyweight library to optimize and adapt it for situations like Alberto has described. I'm pretty sure that we'll reach an agreement. I'll have some time during the weekend to read all the reviews and write an small summary of requested changes, ideas, complaints, etc... to summarize the review process. Congratulations to Joaquín and thanks to all those who have participated in the review. Ion Gaztañaga - Review Manager -

1 0

[flyweight] Review period extended to February 3
by Ion Gaztañaga 29 Jan '08

29 Jan '08

Hi to all, We've received 4 positive reviews and several comments, but we still want more ;-) Some people expressed interested in the pre-review period and I want to give some time (weekend is the right time to review a Boost library...) to those who are interested in the library and have not found time to review it. The last review day is February 3. Common, the library is very lightweight ;-) to review, it's pretty well documented, it's certainly small and very general purpose. Here is the information. Last call to passengers! *Description:* Flyweights are small-sized handle classes granting constant access to shared common data, thus allowing for the management of large amounts of entities within reasonable memory limits. Boost.Flyweight makes it easy to use this common programming idiom by providing the class template flyweight<T>, which acts as a drop-in replacement for const T. *Online docs:* http://tinyurl.com/2sstyr http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/index.html *Download:* http://tinyurl.com/hrdm6 http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directo… *Notes:* 1) We've seen some suggestions in the mailing list for Flyweight. Joaquín has nicely explained a couple of issues that we'd like to address/discuss in the review: http://tinyurl.com/33ghtf http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/doc/review_… 2) Flyweight needs Boost 1.35 elements because the library depends on libraries like Interprocess for some features/tests. Since SVN snapshot tarballs seem to be missing these days, those who want to try flyweight can download a working SVN-HEAD snapshot here: http://igaztanaga.drivehq.com/boost_trunk.tar.bz2 3) Serialization tests won't work. This feature is expected to work when some new features (discussed in the mailing list between Joaquín and Robert Ramey) are added in Boost.Serialization. Those are expected for Boost 1.36. What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: * What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And finally, every review should answer this question: * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Ion Gaztañaga - Review Manager -

1 0

[review] Fast track review of Boost.Utility/Singleton - rejected for now
by John Torjo 29 Jan '08

29 Jan '08

Hi all, We've gotten a lot of feedback on the Boost.Utility/Singleton. It's clear that such an addition would be beneficial to Boost, but I've chosen to reject the library at this time. Summary: - 4 positive reviews - 4 negative reviews Phil Endecott - yes Nat Goodspeed - yes Dherring[@]ll[]mit[]edu - yes Ingolf Steinbach - yes Anthony Williams - no Gennady - no Pierre-Jules Tremblay - no Michael Marcin - no The main concern was that the library is not flexible enough, and that it imposes too many things on the users (like, if BOOST_HAS_THREADS is defined, the singleton is automatically thread-safe). I would like to see this into Boost, so I hope Tobias will update the library, given all this feedback, and I would suggest another review in 2-3 months. I'd like to be the review manager then as well, if Tobias will still want me. Suggestions: * Should use policies to specify creation/destruction, access to singleton, resurection For creation/destruction, one should be able to have singleton<single_thread<T> >, singleton< synchronized<T> >, singleton< thread_specific<T> > * example for DLL support * more detailed docs As for the next review of the library, I will talk to Tobias, and let the review wizard know. Thanks to Tobias, for the lib, and to all that participated to the review! Best, John - Review Manager - -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

[review] Review of Flyweight library started January 21 and still running!
by Ion Gaztañaga 26 Jan '08

26 Jan '08

Hi all, The formal review of Flyweight library started January 21 and will end January 30, we have a few nice reviews, but I'm sure that those who haven't reviewed it are also interested in the library ;-). The library solves quite a common programming pattern, is small and very well documented. So don't be afraid to try it! Information for reviewers: *Description:* Flyweights are small-sized handle classes granting constant access to shared common data, thus allowing for the management of large amounts of entities within reasonable memory limits. Boost.Flyweight makes it easy to use this common programming idiom by providing the class template flyweight<T>, which acts as a drop-in replacement for const T. *Online docs:* http://tinyurl.com/2sstyr http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/index.html *Download:* http://tinyurl.com/hrdm6 http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directo… *Notes:* 1) We've seen some suggestions in the mailing list for Flyweight. Joaquín has nicely explained a couple of issues that we'd like to address/discuss in the review: http://tinyurl.com/33ghtf http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/doc/review_… 2) Flyweight needs Boost 1.35 elements because the library depends on libraries like Interprocess for some features/tests. Since SVN snapshot tarballs seem to be missing these days, those who want to try flyweight can download a working SVN-HEAD snapshot here: http://igaztanaga.drivehq.com/boost_trunk.tar.bz2 3) Serialization tests won't work. This feature is expected to work when some new features (discussed in the mailing list between Joaquín and Robert Ramey) are added in Boost.Serialization. Those are expected for Boost 1.36. What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: * What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And finally, every review should answer this question: * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Ion Gaztañaga - Review Manager -

1 0

BoostCon 2008 Now Open For Registration
by David Abrahams 25 Jan '08

25 Jan '08

Hi All, The 2nd annual Boost Conference has been scheduled for May 4-9 2008. Please see http://www.boostcon.com/registration for registration information. If you want to stay at the Aspen Meadows (highly recommended as it is within walking distance of the conference venue and was the site of great after-hours discussions in '07), it's especially important this year that you book your rooms early. Since, unlike last year, Aspen's airport will be open this May, demand for rooms has been heavy. In fact, the following week, which we tried to get, was snapped up by another group before we even had a chance to catch our breath, just weeks after BoostCon'07 ended. We'll be working hard on getting the program together for 2008 over the coming weeks. We hope to include many more Boost authors and contributors, and build in several more intensive library-specific sessions, to make 2008 better than ever. Please send any questions to the BoostCon planning committee at: organizers(a)boostcon.com. Those of you who didn't make it to BoostCon'07 may want to have a look at the photo gallery at http://boostcon.com/community/photos, peruse the 2007 program at http://boostcon.com/program, and check out the two trip reports mentioned here: http://boostcon.com/news/2007/Jul/16/yet-another-trip-report. See you in Aspen! -- The BoostCon Planning Committee

1 0

[review] Review of Flyweight library begins today January 7
by Ion Gaztañaga 21 Jan '08

21 Jan '08

The formal review of Flyweight library, proposed by Joaquín M. López Muñoz, begins today (sorry for the late announcement): *Description:* Flyweights are small-sized handle classes granting constant access to shared common data, thus allowing for the management of large amounts of entities within reasonable memory limits. Boost.Flyweight makes it easy to use this common programming idiom by providing the class template flyweight<T>, which acts as a drop-in replacement for const T. *Online docs:* http://tinyurl.com/2sstyr http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/index.html *Download:* http://tinyurl.com/hrdm6 http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directo… *Notes:* 1) We've seen some suggestions in the mailing list for Flyweight. Joaquín has nicely explained a couple of issues that we'd like to address/discuss in the review: http://tinyurl.com/33ghtf http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/doc/review_… 2) Flyweight needs Boost 1.35 elements because the library depends on libraries like Interprocess for some features/tests. Since SVN snapshot tarballs seem to be missing these days, those who want to try flyweight can download a working SVN-HEAD snapshot here: http://igaztanaga.drivehq.com/boost_trunk.tar.bz2 3) Serialization tests won't work. This feature is expected to work when some new features (discussed in the mailing list between Joaquín and Robert Ramey) are added in Boost.Serialization. Those are expected for Boost 1.36. What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: * What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And finally, every review should answer this question: * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Ion Gaztañaga - Review Manager -

1 1

[flyweight] Remainder: Flyweight review will start January 21
by Ion Gaztañaga 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

Hi to all, Flyweight library will be reviewed January 21-30. For those interested in the library, this post contains all the information needed for the review: *Author:* Joaquín M. López Muñoz *Description:* Flyweights are small-sized handle classes granting constant access to shared common data, thus allowing for the management of large amounts of entities within reasonable memory limits. Boost.Flyweight makes it easy to use this common programming idiom by providing the class template flyweight<T>, which acts as a drop-in replacement for const T. *Online docs:* http://tinyurl.com/2sstyr http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/index.html *Download:* http://tinyurl.com/hrdm6 http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directo… *Notes:* 1) We've seen some suggestions in the mailing list for Flyweight. Joaquín has nicely explained a couple of issues that we'd like to address/discuss in the review: http://tinyurl.com/33ghtf http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/libs/flyweight/doc/review_… 2) Flyweight needs Boost 1.35 elements because the library depends on libraries like Interprocess for some features/tests. Since SVN snapshot tarballs seem to be missing these days, those who want to try flyweight can download a working SVN-HEAD snapshot here: http://igaztanaga.drivehq.com/boost_trunk.tar.bz2 3) Serialization tests won't work. This feature is expected to work when some new features (discussed in the mailing list between Joaquín and Robert Ramey) are added in Boost.Serialization. Those are expected for Boost 1.36. Regards, Ion

1 0

the Switch library by Steven Watanabe has been accepted provisionally
by Stjepan Rajko 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

The Switch library, submitted by Steven Watanabe, has been accepted provisionally pending a mini-review to be scheduled when possible. The purpose of the mini-review will be to assure that the suggestions outlined below have been adequately addressed. I would like to again thank Steven for submitting a very useful library, and for diligently working with the reviewers on improving its design. I would also like to thank Tobias Schwinger, Joel de Guzman, Darren Cook, Daniel (dherring@...), Felipe Magno de Almeida, and Paul Bristow for providing reviews, votes and half votes. Finally, thanks also to Dan Marsden, Larry Evans, Alexander Nasonov, Richard (legalize@...) and Mathias Gaunard for contributing to the discussion. SUMMARY OF VOTES: Tobias Schwinger and Joel de Guzman have submitted full reviews with positive votes: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/32637 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/32634 (Joel eventually converted his vote to "yes") One "yes" (half) vote was submitted by Paul Bristow: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/170069 One "no" (half) vote was submitted by Felipe Magno de Almeida: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/170051 Another "no" came privately - the point there was that the library didn't undergo enough scrutiny before submission, and that it should be resubmitted. Another privately submitted "no" came soon after the review opened, stating that the reviewer was not able to deduce any usability/usefulness from the library documentation, and suggested there should be a motivating example on the first page. RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTANCE: I believe the low number of full, positive reviews is justified by the relatively narrow scope that this library covers. Within that scope, however, reviewers indicated that the library is extremely useful. Also, the reviewers submitting positive votes have indicated (and proven) significant expertise in the area, leading me to place much weight on their votes. On the other hand, the negative votes did not point out any concrete flaws in the library itself that would merit rejection. RATIONALE FOR REQUIRING A MINI-REVIEW The "no" votes did, on the other hand, indicate some skepticism of the quality of the library/documentation as submitted, and the progress of the redesign that was happening during the review. Also, as a result of the review, the potential scope of the library has expanded significantly from what was originally proposed (which mostly focused on the ability to choose the number of cases at run-time). I believe that a combination of these two give sufficient reason for a mini-review - doubts about the library can be resolved, and those that might become prospective users of the library under the expanded scope will get a chance to give their opinion. I volunteered to manage the mini-review, so once the library is ready it will hopefully not remain in the review queue for too long (as it seems that finding review managers is the biggest problem ATM). To keep the burden on the community low, I propose to treat the mini-review as a partial continuation of the current review - I will consider the "yes" votes by Tobias and Joel to be left standing unless they state otherwise, and will require any "no" votes to be (re)justified given the new condition of the library. SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE LIBRARY: * Documentation All reviewers have noted that the documentation could be improved. Specific suggestions were: * motivating example on the first page * additional examples * performance stats * more explanation of the types involved and how they are used. As the scope for the library has increased as a consequence of the review, a gentler, more detailed documentation approach might benefit the library - I believe that many people might find the new library useful, given the right motivation and examples in the documentation. * Return type Tobias Schwinger suggested that the return type should be specified explicitly in the switch_ call, rather than inferring it from the function object, and this seems to be the status quo in the newer designs. Joel de Guzman also suggested that if a version of switch_ should infer the return type, that return type should be a Boost.Variant of the types returned by each of the cases. * Default default behavior If the default behavior is left unspecified, switch_ should invoke the default constructor of the return type in the default case, rather than throwing an exception. This was suggested by Tobias Schwinger after the issue was raised by Dan Marsden. Alexander Nasonov has also indicated that a throwing default case can cause inefficiency, even when it is guaranteed not to be invoked. * Fall-through Alexander Nasonov pointed out the lack of fall-through capability in the submitted implementation. Fall-through has been incorporated into the recent designs being discussed. * Allowing void-returning function objects for the default case with a non-void returning switch Tobias Schwinger mentioned the possibility of allowing default case function objects of void return type even when the switch return type is non-void, as long as the function object call does not return. This would be useful, for example, if the function object is guaranteed to throw. After some discussion on whether determining if the return type is void can be done efficiently, it looks like the proposed solution is to use a special return type that indicates that the call will not return. Since Tobias indicated that this feature is a minor point, it could be implemented or not, depending on how well it fits into the final design. * Design There has been a lengthy discussion on the underlying design of the library, what it should offer, and whether the name of the library is appropriate. There are two types of designs that have been put forward as being appropriate and/or necessary for a Boost.Switch library. On one hand, there is the submitted design (labeled "A" in recent postings), which takes the switch cases in an MPL sequence and a single function object containing implementations of all cases. Joel de Guzman has proposed another design (labeled "B"), in which the switch cases are specified separately and allow a different function to be used for each case. Design "A" is better suited for situations in which the number of cases is determined by a compile time constant, while "B" is more appropriate for many use cases, and provides more flexibility and a more familiar syntax. The result of the discussion was that the Boost.Switch library should cover both situations, and an interface is now being developed that can be used in different ways for different uses (based on a common concept capturing case sequences). Thanks again to all that have contributed to this review, and congratulations to Steven for the accepted library. As others have stated, there is much confidence that Steven will meet the challenges successfully for the mini-review, which we will schedule as soon as the library is ready. Regards, Stjepan

1 0

[review] Fast track review of Boost.Utility/Singleton begins today
by John Torjo 14 Jan '08

14 Jan '08

Hi all, Today starts the formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Utility/Singleton library. This is a very useful utility, so I'm expecting lots of reviews ;) *Description* A Singleton describes a globally accessible and unique facility, typically implemented as a class with inaccessible constructors and a globally accessible function for clients to access a single instance which is created when accessed for the first time. This library provides three Singleton templates that share an identical interface : |- boost::singleton| : can be used to create Singletons with synchronized initialization. If further synchronization is required it has to be implemented by the user. |- boost::mutexed_singleton| : additionally ensures that concurrent access to the instance is mutually exclusive. In other words, only one thread can access the instance at a given time. |- boost::thread_specific_singleton| : instances exist once per thread. *Author* Tobias Schwinger *Download* Get it from here: http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filenam… Read documentation online here: http://torjo.com/tobias/ What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: * What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And finally, every review should answer this question: * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Best, John Torjo - Review Manager - -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

Switch library review begins today and ends on Jan 9th
by Stjepan Rajko 05 Jan '08

05 Jan '08

The review of the Switch library by Steven Watanabe begins today. Description: The built in C/C++ switch statement is very efficient. Unfortunately, unlike a chained if/else construct there is no easy way to use it when the number of cases depends on a template parameter. The Switch library addresses this issue. You can download the library from the Boost Vault: http://tinyurl.com/23qn7w For convenience, the docs have been uploaded here: http://tinyurl.com/2h6ut9 ... and the source file here: http://tinyurl.com/2cbfyk What to include in Review Comments Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: * What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And finally, every review should answer this question: * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Thanks to Dan Marsden, Larry Evans, Tobias Schwinger, and Alexander Nasonov for already opening up the discussion in the following threads: http://tinyurl.com/2u6fjr [nabble/boost-user] http://tinyurl.com/267uj3 [nabble/boost-dev] Thank you for taking the time to look into this library, and I hope that some of you will be able to provide a full review for it. Regards, Stjepan

1 0