Re: [Boost-users] [review] Formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library begins today

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-27 11:34:50

Cromwell Enage wrote:
> --- John Torjo wrote:
>> Hi all,
> 
> Hello!
> 
> I hope it's not too late to submit a review.
> 
>> What to include in Review Comments
>> ==================================
>> * What is your evaluation of the design?
> 
> Simple enough to understand.  And I'm fine with the
> name, too, as long as it's qualified with the
> Functional prefix.
> 
>> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> 
> N/A
> 
>> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> 
> A little too sparse for comfort.  It's not so much
> that there are too few examples, but that they need to
> be more fleshed out, e.g. code before boost::factory
> v.s. code using boost::factory.  With this type of
> format, not only do programmers see the syntactical
> benefits of using boost::factory, but they could also
> tell at a glance whether or not they can use it for
> the task at hand.

Yes, that's pretty much what I figured from previous feedback.

> 
>> * What is your evaluation of the potential
>> usefulness of the library?
> 
> It's easy to underestimate, especially without more
> fleshed-out examples.  But for myself, I find it very
> useful.  For example, when I get the chance to update
> my Automaton library (and upon acceptance of this
> library), I'll immediately replace my
> default_constructible_gen utility with value_factory. 

> This leads to another generalized use case:
> value_factory can produce lazy default values/objects
> for Boost.Parameter-enabled arguments.

Nice one!

> 
>> * Did you try to use the library?  With what
>> compiler?  Did you have any problems?
> 
> No, N/A, and not yet.
> 
>> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
>>    A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
> 
> The Christmas season hasn't given me much time to do
> more than a quick reading.
> 
>> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> And finally, every review should answer this
>> question:
>>
>> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a
>> Boost library?
> 
> I vote conditional acceptance pending improvements
> made to the documentation examples.  The library is
> named after a design pattern that not everyone knows
> about or may have a different understanding of--some
> programmers see factories as object managers that
> reuse objects rather than delete them for performance
> reasons--so I think some in-depth examples are
> extremely important for clarification purposes.  Peter
> Dimov gave a good use case, 

...spelling out the (not quite so) obvious, I guess.

> and FWIW I'll try to help out as well.

You did (see above).

Thanks for your review!

Regards,
Tobias