[Boost-users] Boost.DLL formal review result

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[Boost-users] Boost.DLL formal review result

Vladimir Prus-4

The Boost.DLL library is accepted. Congratulations to Antony, and thanks for everybody who
reviewed the library!

The votes were as follows:

- Ralf Globisch - Yes
- Klaim - Joël Lamotte - Yes
- Niall Douglas - Yes, conditionally
- John P Fletcher - Yes
- Bjorn Reese - Yes
- Edward Diener - Yes
- Rodrigo Madera - Yes
- Richard - Yes

I'd like to also thank Thomas Trummer, Rob Stewart and Ion Gaztañaga for their contribution to review.

The key suggestions from the review are listed below. None is critical enough to become a formal prerequisite, or 
require a mini-review. The library can  be added when Antony feels its ready.


There was a concern that "DLL" might sound windows specific, and search for best terminology. This
does not seem all that important, as soon as documentation introduces the terminology it uses, and is consistent.

OSX support

The library was found not to work on OSX; I believe this issue was already fixed off-list with help from Rodrigo.


Several people requested improvements. Bjorn and John, in particular, pointed out specific issues. This seems to be the post important
change prior to adding the library.

Dependencies on Boost and system headers

It was suggested that the library does not depend on other Boost C++ Libraries. While it might be helpful to some users, I find it logically impossible for a Boost 
formal review to request that dependencies on Boost libraries be removed. 

It was also mentioned that Boost.DLL is header-only library and includes system headers that can bring a lot of symbols and maybe macros. I don't think an actual 
problem was reported, though, and there is no way to avoid the problem while staying header-only.

It's up to the author to consider these suggestions and do something, or don't do anything.

Continuous integration

There was a recommendation from Niall to improve CI of the library, including static analysis, valgrind, Windows CI, showing CI status in documentation and so forth.
These are good suggestions. At the same time, they are not specific to Boost.DLL, and it's not the goal of a formal review to create new generic development 
process requirements. Many existing libraries of indisputably high quality do not have these requested mechanisms.

Therefore, the author can act on these suggestions as he sees fit.


Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-announce