- Boost - lists.boost.org

Is Boost interested in a Redis client library?
by Marcelo Zimbres Silva 13 Apr '22

13 Apr '22

Hi, I am the author of Aedis, a Redis client library built on top of Boost.Asio that provides communication with the Redis Server over its native and most recent protocol RESP3 [1]. It is an implementation from scratch that depends only on other Boost Libraries (Asio, Variant2, Optional, etc.) and targets C++14. I would like to propose it for inclusion in Boost in the near future if there is enough interest, at the moment I am interested in early feedback as I finish writing it (writing docs, improving tests etc.) - Do you think this library would be valuable to Boost? - Was the documentation helpful to understand what Aedis provides? - Does the design look good? - Any feedback is welcome. Link to Aedis Documentation: https://mzimbres.github.io/aedis/ Link to the github project: https://github.com/mzimbres/aedis If you never heard about Redis, this is the best place to start: https://redis.io Regards, Marcelo [1] https://github.com/antirez/RESP3/blob/master/spec.md

6 17

Proposing a MySQL client library for inclusion in Boost
by Ruben Perez 08 Apr '22

08 Apr '22

Hi all, I would like to propose my MySQL client library for inclusion in Boost. The library features asynchronous communication with MySQL and MariaDB servers, allowing the user to use txt queries and prepared statements. The library is based on Boost.Asio and follows its asynchronous model (in a similar way Boost.Beast does). The library is specific to MySQL and MariaDB systems, and is not intended as a SQL framework or ORM. It fits use cases like HTTP servers (possibly already using Beast), ETL pipelines or any other application that needs to access a MySQL database and wants to benefit from Asio's asynchrony. Please note that the library is a full implementation of MySQL wire protocol and does not use libmysqlclient under the hood. I'm looking for people who officially endorse the library. You can see the code in this GitHub repository <https://github.com/anarthal/mysql>, and the documentation is here <https://anarthal.github.io/mysql/index.html>. Many thanks, Ruben.

4 11

[release] Boost 1.79.0 Release Candidate 1 is available
by Marshall Clow 08 Apr '22

08 Apr '22

https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.79.0/source/ The first release candidates for the 1.79.0 release are now available at: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.79.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 3634f9a85759311f321e587eace21799c0d0c946ff933e477a2f98885c54bbff0 boost_1_79_0_rc1.zip 273f1be93238a068aba4f9735a4a2b003019af067b9c183ed227780b8f36062c boost_1_79_0_rc1.tar.gz 475d589d51a7f8b3ba2ba4eda022b170e562ca3b760ee922c146b6c65856ef39 boost_1_79_0_rc1.tar.bz2 6c97cf4f4a0eb00ed776c88065ab3f59e183fa5e65f6464ff94f92328352d9d6 boost_1_79_0_rc1.7z As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Release managers

5 6

Master branch now closed for 1.79.0 release
by Marshall Clow 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

Please do not make any commits to the master branch. — Marshall

1 0

Time delay Issue with async_write_some and async_read_some
by Daggumati, Rajesh 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

Hi Team, We can see two different behaviours in communication when we tested in windows and Linux with same hardware .Windows responded slowly compared to Linux. We are using async_write_some and async_read_some methods from boost library for RS-232 communication with hardware(COM1). m_serialPort.async_write_some(boost::asio::buffer(toSend), boost::bind(&SerialPortAsync::HandleSentData, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error, boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)); m_serialPort.async_read_some(boost::asio::buffer(m_RecvBuffer), boost::bind(&SerialPortAsync::HandleReceive, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error, boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)); Comparison Linux Vs Windows for same application : Linux Sending Time ---> 2020/11/23 17:34:56.678585,1064, , <-- (+0.000151) (11)[010B0557,0D0001E8,03C40F] [tx-queue:24] Send Receiving Time ---> 2020/11/23 17:34:56.680490,1064, , --> (+0.001905) (8)[060B0557,040D00E8] [tx-queue:24] Turnaround time : 0.001905 Windows Sending Time ---> 2022/03/28 14:41:28.662338,5388, , <-- (+0.000000) (11)[010B0457,0D0001E8,035BDA] [tx-queue:40] Receiving Time --> 2022/03/28 14:41:28.693591,5388, , --> (+0.031253) (9)[06090457,0D0001B0,1F] [tx-queue:40] Turnaround time : 0.031253 We want to know why windows takes more time as compared to Linux. We cannot put more debug logs in the application code. Below this layer, boost library play the role to transfer the data to the Serial port Regards, Rajesh D Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment.

1 1

[release] 1.79.0 post-beta merges
by Marshall Clow 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

The master branch is is now open for post-beta merges, but only as described in the Post-Beta Merge Policy. See <https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy <https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy>> Reminder: The master branch closes for the release on Wednesday, April 6th. Full calendar here: https://www.boost.org/development/ <https://www.boost.org/development/> — Marshall P.S Doc changes and test changes do NOT require release manager approval to be merged.

7 12

So.... what are we going to do about modules?
by John Maddock 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

The title says it all really, but in more detail: 1) Is there any existing best practice we should follow yet? 2) Can we share code content effectively between headers and modules? And by modules I mean "proper" ones: we should be able to write "import boost.whatever;" rather than importing a header. 3) What directory structure should we all be using for module definition files? 4) Do we have Boost.Build support yet? 5) What file extensions should we be using? 6) I presume we would all use the boost.libraryname and boost.libraryname.sub_feature naming convention with boost.libraryname pulling in the whole library? 7) Does anyone have a handle on the current state of std library modularization? 8) Is there demand for this? And no doubt lots of other things I haven't thought of. Curiously yours, John.

11 27

Permission to merge bug fix to Outcome
by Niall Douglas 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Issue being fixed is https://github.com/ned14/outcome/issues/259 where enabling of move assignment was not calculated correctly. (To be specific, if both T and E implement move assignment and default construction, but not move nor copy construction, we did not enable move assignment before and with this fix now we do) Code fixing it is at https://github.com/ned14/outcome/pull/260 Fix passes on develop branch at https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/outcome.html Niall

2 4

Should boost have ofind(_if), that returns boost::optional<T&>?
by Ivan Matek 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Hi, I have been thinking for this for a long time so I wanted to get the feedback from others. As you probably know better than me there is a bit of a drama <https://brevzin.github.io/c++/2021/12/13/optional-ref-ptr/>when it comes to std::optional<T&> and from what I see it will not be in C++23 for sure. I believe this gives an opportunity to boost to provide something nice for the users. Now the issues are the following: AFAIK boost only has old ranges and iterator based algorithms, ideally we would just have something like std:: ranges and add the ofind/ofind_if to those, but AFAIK those do not exist. So I think best thing would be to add it to boost::algorithm <https://github.com/boostorg/algorithm/tree/develop/include/boost/algorithm> . There are further questions like, should boost containers like map/unordered_map gain similar functionality, but I think deciding if we want the general algorithm is the first step. Another option I can think of is that those algorithms return something like a 0 or 1 element view(so you could access the optional value with range based for loop). This seems weird to me, so I would prefer boost::optional<T&>. There is s a short example on godbolt <https://godbolt.org/z/W9K3na9Gc>, but don't look at implementation too much, it was just something I hacked quickly, I am mostly interested in in feedback on if functionality would be nice addition to boost. regards, Ivan

5 9

regarding performance of boost::recursive_mutex::scoped_lock
by Daggumati, Rajesh 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

Hi Team, boost::recursive_mutex::scoped_lock behavior is same in linux and windows? I am getting some delay in my project which is in windows but same project in linux is not getting delayed. Regards, Rajesh D Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment.

2 1