Re: [Boost-users] [review] Review of Flyweight library begins today January 21

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-21 15:23:34

Ion Gaztañaga escribió:
> The formal review of Flyweight library, proposed by Joaquín M. López 
> Muñoz, begins today (sorry for the late announcement):

Obviously, I meant January 21, not January 7 (!!!) so here we go again:

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=&directory=Patterns

*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_notes.html

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 -