Hi, Boost.DLL library seems ready, users use it and do not complain. Is there anyone wishing to help with review and become a Review Manager? Boost.DLL is a C++98 library for comfortable work with DLL and DSO. Library provides a portable across platforms way to: - load libraries at runtime - import and export any native functions and variables - make alias names for C++ mangled functions and symbols - query libraries/objects and executables for sections and exported symbols - self loading and self querying - getting program and module location by exported symbol Github: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/Boost.DLL/index.html -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
On 04/19/2015 11:39 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
Hi,
Boost.DLL library seems ready, users use it and do not complain.
Is there anyone wishing to help with review and become a Review Manager?
Boost.DLL is a C++98 library for comfortable work with DLL and DSO. Library provides a portable across platforms way to:
- load libraries at runtime - import and export any native functions and variables - make alias names for C++ mangled functions and symbols - query libraries/objects and executables for sections and exported symbols - self loading and self querying - getting program and module location by exported symbol
Github: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/Boost.DLL/index.html
Hi, unless anybody more qualified volunteers, I can run the review. I was previously working on something similar, so I know about the problem domain, but it was sufficiently long ago that I have no vested interest. HTH, -- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com
2015-04-19 12:28 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>:
On 04/19/2015 11:39 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
Hi,
Boost.DLL library seems ready, users use it and do not complain.
Is there anyone wishing to help with review and become a Review Manager?
<...>
Github: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL
Hi,
unless anybody more qualified volunteers, I can run the review.
I was previously working on something similar, so I know about the problem domain, but it was sufficiently long ago that I have no vested interest.
Great! I'd be honored to have you as a review manager! How about scheduling the review for the middle of May? -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
On 04/19/2015 01:51 PM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
2015-04-19 12:28 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>:
On 04/19/2015 11:39 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
Hi,
Boost.DLL library seems ready, users use it and do not complain.
Is there anyone wishing to help with review and become a Review Manager?
<...>
Github: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL
Hi,
unless anybody more qualified volunteers, I can run the review.
I was previously working on something similar, so I know about the problem domain, but it was sufficiently long ago that I have no vested interest.
Great! I'd be honored to have you as a review manager!
How about scheduling the review for the middle of May?
Will starting on May 18 be fine? Also, given that a popular opinion is that 10 days is not enough, over at: https://plus.google.com/+VladimirPrus/posts/5spgjicc3fv I would suggest to run the review for two weeks, if that's OK with everybody? -- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com
On 19 Apr 2015 at 9:54, Glen Fernandes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Will starting on May 18 be fine? Also, given that a popular opinion is that 10 days is not enough, over at:
Better schedule it for some time after C++Now ends.
+50 Yep, there is a queue already after C++ Now. Metaparse, QVM, Hana at the very least. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
2015-04-19 19:10 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>: <...>
Will starting on May 18 be fine? Also, given that a popular opinion is that 10 days is not enough, over at:
https://plus.google.com/+VladimirPrus/posts/5spgjicc3fv
I would suggest to run the review for two weeks, if that's OK with everybody?
Two weeks is OK. But it looks like there's no time slot before 29 of June. So how about having a review at June 29 till July 12? -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
participants (4)
-
Antony Polukhin -
Glen Fernandes -
Niall Douglas -
Vladimir Prus