Re: [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]
From: Nat Goodspeed (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-14 07:37:50

On Feb 14, 2011, at 1:28 AM, "Ilya Sokolov" <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:29:04 +0500, Nat Goodspeed wrote:

>>> a library permitting a large suite of use cases that are meaningful cross-platform is just what I need. Again, I offer Python's subprocess module as proof by example that this is achievable.
>> 
> 
> subprocess.py is not a library that 'has platform-independent code only'.
> Look at preexec_fn, close_fds, startupinfo and creationflags parameters.

Shrug - I've never used those. They are not part of the large suite of cross-platform use cases I was referencing.

Am I glad they exist? Yes, it shows someone was trying to be very thoughtful about the API design. I can't comment on how well those customization points address the cases they were intended to address. I have used subprocess in many situations without needing them, because typically I'm writing cross-platform scripts.

In my opinion, a v1 Boost.Process library wouldn't strictly need support for that functionality to be tremendously useful.

Put differently: for someone who must already write platform-dependent code, the various native APIs aren't that hard. But it's tedious and exasperating to have to write platform-dependent code for the subset of process-management operations that are not platform-dependent. To me, this is where a Boost.Process library would really shine.
>