Re: [Boost-users] Question about Boost Interfaces

From: Martin de Lasa (martin.delasa_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-21 11:36:48

Jonathan,

Thanks for your reponse.

> > Does anyone know the status of the Boost.Interfaces Library proposed by
> > Chris Diggins in 2004?
>
> It was written by me, inspired by an article that Chris wrote in CUJ.
>

Oops ... sorry about that. For what it's worth I also read chris' 2004 CUJ
article. This was one of the reasons I started to be hopeful that someone
had already moved ahead and taken a stab at implementing a "boosted "
version of the lib (vs. the aspectc++ preproc approach).

> I never officially proposed the library; I just requested comments.
> Although there seemed to be quite a bit of interest, I became very busy
> and didn't have time to work on it.
>
> However, I'm working on it again now -- as of last week -- and hope to
> request comments soon and then to propose it for inclusion.
>

That's great. Out of curiosity are you shooting to have a working draft
ready for some particular time?

> > I have found a few references to it on the internet, including one on
> > the Boost Wiki, but it seems to not have ever made it into the official
> > Boost library.
>
> > I am interest in exploring how Aspect-Oriented Programming techniques
> > might be incorporate into an existing code-base, and would prefer to use
> > a library based solution, rather than a special preprocessor (eg.
> > apsectc++). Since Boost has come to the rescue in the past (with elegant
> > solutions), in this respect, I thought I would start here.
>
> I don't know a lot about AOP; the support for AOP in the interfaces
> library was based on another article by Chris and wasn't very well
> developed. I think I want to include pretty comprehensive support, or
> none at all, and I haven't decided which yet. Sorry I can't be more
> helpful right now.

It funny, though I have been annoyed for years by the design issues that AOP
attempts to address, I only became aware of AOP (as a formal technique)
recently. So, it looks like we are in the same boat !!

Have you found any good papers/books/videos that you feel talk about AOP at
the depth of level for which you want to provide support? As with any
techniques I am sure the 80/20 rule applies to AOP (i.e. 20% of features
will deliver 80% of the benefit). Though I have never been part of the
formal boost lib proposal process, I wonder if getting a solid/minimal
subset of AOP features into a boost lib might do as a first cut to proposing
the lib.

Thanks again. I look forward to what you come up with!

Martin

_______________________________________________

> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>

-- 
Martin de Lasa