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: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-15 03:35:19

2015-07-14 18:32 GMT+03:00 Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:

> 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.

This could be useful. I'll think of adding a BOOST_DLL_USE_LIBRARY macro
and compiling DLL as a library

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin