Re: [Boost-users] Boost.DLL formal review is ending soon - submit your reviews

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost.DLL formal review is ending soon - submit your reviews
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-14 11:32:06

On 7/14/15 6:57 AM, Rodrigo Madera wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Lee Clagett <forum_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:forum_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
>     My other question was about the header-only design. Is there a
>     reason why all of the code is being exported into the users
>     codebase? Is it necessary? I think this should be a compiled +
>     linked library, or it should be explained in the rationale.
>
>
> I've been thinking about this... The cost of having the library
> header-only in this case is symbol pollution, bringing lots of otherwise
> encapsulated information.
>
> Maybe non-header-only solution would be "cleaner" from a user's point of
> view?

This is a recurring issue with boost libraries.  Header only makes for a 
convenient library for many users - just include the header and try it 
out.  On the other hand, for a large project where one is willing to 
invest more effort, a compiled library is attractive.  I believe that 
for many libraries, it's possible to make the library such that one 
could have both by  providing different #include for each type.  This 
comment applies not to just this library but to others as well.  Of 
course it wouldn't apply to all libraries.  I would love to seem someone 
invest some effort to see if this is possible for this or some other 
library.  Then if such an experiment were successful, we'd write up an 
article about it and include it in the boost body of work.

Robert Ramey