Re: [Boost-users] Forthcoming Boost.Fiber review

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Forthcoming Boost.Fiber review
From: Carlos Ferreira (carlosmf.pt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-19 05:44:38

Well, the reason why I asked about that, was because my use-case is an
Openflow Controller which needs to support a massive number of open
sockets. This use case needs to be stable enough for demonstration and
prototype purposes.
You are right! I should have asked instead "Will the API change" which is
probably a much better question for this use-case.

Unfortunately I don't have much time to spend in reviews nor I can give
myself to the luxury of waiting for new code submissions, in order to solve
a certain problem.
For now, I will stick to the normal Boost.Coroutines (despite I also have a
few problems with that. Please watch my next post for further detail). If I
really need the capabilities that the Fiber framework is providing, then I
will surely contribute.

Thanks for your (and the other developers) work.

On 19 December 2013 02:01, Nat Goodspeed <nat_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Carlos Ferreira <carlosmf.pt_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
> Nat, one question.
>> How stable is the lib?
>>
>> Boost.Fiber seems to be exactly what I need, but I would prefer to use a
>> stable version. Can you give me information regarding that aspect?
>> Thanks! :)
>>
>
> It's exactly what I need too. Undergoing the Boost review process and
> becoming officially part of the Boost libraries makes it that much more
> stable.
>
>  Oliver has extensive self-testing. I know that he has run his tests and
> examples on Windows, Mac and Linux, 32-bit and 64-bit, with a few different
> gcc versions. I have successfully dropped it into (a fork of) a large
> production program, replacing an older, less official library with similar
> functionality. On that basis, I'm comfortable that it's ready for a broader
> review.
>
> But it's really the review itself that allows us to call a library
> "stable." You might mean: is the API still changing? or: how buggy is it,
> on my platform, for my use case? The Boost review process invites many
> people, on many platforms, with many use cases, to consider the API and
> hopefully to test the library for themselves. The intention is to flush out
> desired/required API changes, as well as obscure bugs. It is often the case
> that a library author is requested to refine the API and then to resubmit
> for a shorter review cycle.
>
> Once the Boost community reaches consensus, then we can use the word
> "stable" with more confidence.
>
> Since you say you have a use case, if you would be so good as to try the
> library yourself and submit a review, you will help it to reach "stable"
> status.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>

-- 
Carlos Miguel Ferreira
Researcher at Telecommunications Institute
Aveiro - Portugal
Work E-mail - cmf_at_[hidden]
Skype & GTalk -> carlosmf.pt_at_[hidden]
LinkedIn -> http://www.linkedin.com/in/carlosmferreira