Re: [Boost-users] Boost.Beast vs Boost.Asio

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost.Beast vs Boost.Asio
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-12-03 19:00:02

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:25 AM Cristian Morales Vega
<cristian_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> But you have already written it, if you would offer the patch
> to add that documentation to Asio wouldn't Christopher take it?

Well there are a few problems there. He couldn't add it to Boost.Asio
without also adding it to stand-alone Asio. My documentation is kind
of boost-specific (I'm working on that though). And he would probably
have written it differently (or not at all). This means that whenever
I want to update it, he will have to also spend time on it. This puts
an unnecessary burden on someone. Furthermore it isn't clear that
Chris is the best person to be writing tutorials (or myself for that
matter). Everyone is specialized differently so I think it is better
for the people who have 1. the incentive, and 2. the ability to
maintain the work.

> Fair enough. Better to have a workaround than nothing. But until
> somebody with more OpenSSL knowledge comes with a proper fix, wouldn't
> the workaround be better in the Asio repository?

Yes this would be better if it was fixed upstream (in Asio).

> To be fair, I don't know how the different Boost libraries are
> developed. Maybe it's too difficult for the developer of one library
> to contribute to another library?

Each Boost library is like its own kingdom with its own ruler. Within
a library, the author is mostly free to do as they wish. It would be
nice to resolve some of these issues though.

Regards