December 2008 - Boost-users - lists.preview.boost.org

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] tweaking the review process
by David Abrahams 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

on Fri Nov 21 2008, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > Stjepan Rajko wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Phillips >> <phillips(a)mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote: >>> Stjepan Rajko wrote: >>>> [snip] >>> Do you think it would help if the Wizards stressed this need and requested >>> an affirmation of it as part of the lead in to the review? >>> >> >> Definitely. I'm not sure whether stressing this requirement would >> turn off potential review managers because of the added effort, but I >> think it would make the overall review process better. >> >> Stjepan > > > I don't want to discourage anyone who will do a good job of managing a review, but > if we decide this is a necessary step in providing a good review then I'm not upset by > discouraging anyone who won't do it. I'm not sure just what's being proposed here (so this might be off-base), but it's important not to make anything unnecessarily burdensome. We need to rely on peoples' intelligence and sense of responsibility without making egregious rules. For example, a review manager should not -- in general -- need to do a comprehensive review herself; she has enough on her plate already. 95% of the time it should be enough to make a judgement based on the other reviews: both their votes and their quality, depth, etc. At the end of the review period, if she is truly left unsure whether the library should be accepted, a review manager might go through the process herself, but otherwise a comprehensive review from the manager should not be required. I think it would be good if the review wizards could make it clear that they are available to provide guidance in case review managers have questions about how to do their jobs well. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

2 1

tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
by Stjepan Rajko 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > I would like to make some suggestion to improve the review management: > Thank you for starting this discussion. > * I had notice only at the end of the the review that the review tokes place on two mailing lists (devel ans user). Maybe this is usaual on Boost reviews but I was not aware. It will be more transaparent if all the reviews were posted to the same mailing list, maybe a specific one should be created. Yes, this is a bit of an issue. I mentioned that both lists are used in my post that opened the review (in my notes to first-time reviewers) to try to give people a heads-up (but... I often get long-winded and I'm sure it's easy to miss parts of my posts :-)). Having a dedicated, or at least recommended mailing list (either dev or user) might be a good thing. The only problem I see regarding a completely separate mailing list is that it requires active effort to sign-up for and follow. I think that for many people (even those that are genuinely interested in the library), the fact that the review is happening at time X-Y very easily slips off the radar. Having the e-mails constantly appear in the common lists also serves to remind everyone of the ongoing review, and I suspect it leads to many valuable impromptu comments and even full reviews from people that perhaps weren't originally planning on participating in the review, but end up following the review because it happens on the list (I recall being in this situation myself several times). > > * From the 5 committing reviewers making this review possible only 3 made a review and 2 of them late. I'm wondering if this new rule must be preserved as the review can be accepted without the commiting reviewers review. Trying to use committed reviewers was a new thing for this review (it was proposed by others in http://tinyurl.com/48tdjs). Now that it has been tried out, it would be good to reflect on how things went. For the reviews that were late, the reviewers were very diligently contacting me about their changing time constraints and offered times that would work for them, and I found those times acceptable. Out of the two committed reviewers that did not submit, one also diligently worked with me on setting up an alternative timeline, but in the end contacted me saying that a full review would not be possible after all, and offered a brief report of looking into the library and a brief rationale for acceptance (as the points matched those of other reviewers, I didn't forward it to the list). I was not able to contact the final reviewer after a certain point. I think the major benefit of the committed reviewers is the high probability that they actually will submit a review. Things always happen, and boost contributions are all volunteer time, but I found that overall the committed reviewers *very responsibly* succeeded in keeping their commitment as well as they could. Were they not committed reviewers, I suspect many of them would have considered giving up. In addition, the extensions that the committed reviewers negotiated gave other reviewers a chance to contribute. So, I feel that committed reviews are a good way of reasonably making sure that a certain number of reviews will be submitted. I'm not sure that the library acceptance / rejection should be influenced by the number of committed reviews (reviews from others are a perfectly good substitute). While we're on this topic... The one thing that the number of committed reviewers should definitely influence is whether the review happens in the first place. We were fortunate to get 5 people sign up, which was the only threshold proposed, so we followed through with the review. I was wondering what to do if the threshold wasn't crossed, and I think what I would have proposed is some sort of a holding pattern, where the review schedule page is updated to say something like "signals2 - reviewers needed, contact review manager to sign up as a reviewer". Once the threshold is crossed, the reviewers, manager and author can schedule a time. Another thing... many of the committed reviewers reported that they were first time reviewers (and the reviews they submitted were impressively detailed and very valuable). Personally, I was thrilled by this, since getting new participation in boost is critical to sustaining its quality . Perhaps some combination of allowing reviewers to commit beforehand, and explicitly encouraging reviews focused on the user perspective (another suggestion from the http://tinyurl.com/48tdjs thread), helped in getting first-time reviewers (perhaps the reviewers can comment on this?). > > * There were some reviews that came into this list by the intermediation of the review manager with a delay between the posting of the reviwer and forward from the RM. One negative review posted the 4th and reveived in this list the 11th other positive posted the 2nd and received in this list 3rd. I think that the review manager should not encourage the reviewers to send the reviews to himself. This will avoid this kind of delays. So I purpose that only the reviews sent to this single mailing list must be taken in account. Yes, this particular delay is entirely my fault. I can't explain why I didn't notice this email until so late (which is the point where I contacted the poster notifying him I would like to forward the mail, and forwarded it the following morning). Allowing reviews to be sent to the review manager is straight from http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html (Introduction paragraph). There are two valid reasons for this, IMO: * the reviewer is only subscribed to one of {boost, boost-user, boost-announce} lists, and would like the reviewer to be forwarded to both boost and boost-user lists (if there was a dedicated review list, like you suggest, that was also open to all posters, then this reason would go away) * the reviewer would like to remain anonymous to the list (granted, this could also be accomplished by sending from an anonymous e-mail). If this stays as it is, the RM should be more diligent about monitoring her personal mail, which I apparently wasn't. > > * Even if the review was over the 10th there were 2 accepting reviews comming from the commiting reviewers just some hours before the review result annoncement 19th. I think that the review manager must state clearly when the review is over and do not accept any review after. This do not means that the RMcannot change this date, but annnce it clearly. I tried to keep my timeline as transparent as possible. In my review-closing email, I asked people to let me know if they were considering writing a review. Those that contacted me were informed of the timeline of pending reviews. When the last promised review was submitted, I set a hard deadline. Given the uncertainty in people's schedules, I decided to approach this in a flexible way. That was just my personal preference - I'm sure setting a hard deadline earlier would have been a fine choice as well. > > I hope this will help to improve future reviews, > Thanks again for starting this discussion and for your suggestions - I also hope good improvements will come out of it. Stjepan

3 2

building boost (regex) in mingw
by Lorenzo Bettini 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi I'm trying to install boost regex library under mingw but I can't seem to succeed... the simple configure way does not work I've also tried bjam --build-dir=./tmp --toolset=gcc stage --with-regex but this does not create .a .so files, but only .lib files that I cannot use with mingw compiler... any help please? thanks in advance Lorenzo

1 0

Lite serialization lib optimized for performance
by Sebastian.Karlsson＠mmorpgs.org 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi, I've created a small serialization library which takes a lot of inspiration from the great works of Robert Ramey. The main difference is that my implementation has favoured performance and file size while trying to maintain most of the goodies of boost::serialization. The largest thing missing, I believe, is pointer tracking. I'd like to make it available both for review and others in case there's any interest for such a library, but know of no good public place to make it available. // Sebastian Karlsson

2 3

Re: [Boost-users] Fast XML Parser
by Alan M. Carroll 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

That's only nicer if you have a use for XPath. That is one reason I wouldn't recommend rapidXML in use cases where the application is doing non-trivial edits of the DOM tree, because that's the kind of situation in which XPath is useful. But if your application consumes all the XML every time and writes the entire DOM tree every time, then XPath is of no utility. It's in some sense unfortunate, but the bottom line is that there isn't "the best" XML library, only more or less appropriate ones for particular use cases. I suspect this is a big contributor to the lack of XML support from Boost. At 05:38 AM 12/15/2008, Jose wrote: >Yes, rapidXML is quite nice. It was inspired by pugixml >http://code.google.com/p/pugixml/, which is even nicer becaue it >provides an xpath support. >I personally find rapidXML not as useful/nice without xpath support. >It's also quite easy to migrate from either one library to the other

1 0

BoostCon 2009: Call for Participation
by Hartmut Kaiser 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi all, before we all relax into the holidays I wanted to remind you all about next year's Boost Conference in Aspen, CO, USA, May 3-9. Even if all important dates are listed in the attached Call for Participation, I'll list them here once again: Proposals for submissions due: January 10th 2009. Proposals acceptances sent (tentative program available): February 10th, 2009 Fully scheduled program available: March 1st, 2009 Session materials due: April 1st 2009. IOW, you might want to use some of your free time during the next weeks to think about a possible contribution. It really doesn't take much time to come up with a short abstract! Let's make sure BoostCon 2009 will be a major C++ event! Happy holidays! Regards Hartmut Program Committee Chair BoostCon 2009

3 4

Buffering and ASIO
by Vadim Shmelev 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Good day. I'm trying to read video data transferred by HTTP. I use the following function in order to read HTTP header: boost::asio::async_read_until(m_socket, m_headerBuffer, "\r\n\r\n", boost::bind(&CAXISParser::read_header, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error,boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)); , where m_headerBuffer is asio::streambuf object. During header parsing i can get video sample length. Now I want to read all video data in one function call, for example: boost::asio::async_read(m_socket, boost::asio::buffer(pSample->GetBody(), m_currentSampleLength),boost::bind(&CAXISParser::read_body, this, pSample, boost::asio::placeholders::error, boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)); , where pSample is object with buffer for video data. There is problem that async_read_until captures some data from video data, and that call's behavior is incorrect. How can i fight that problem? For example, how can i figure out number of bytes left in streambuf and copy them to my buffer, and then read rest with async_read? I'm will very appreciate for any advices. Thanks in advance, Vadim

2 2

Fast XML Parser
by Jeff Dunlap 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

I've been looking at a bunch of C++ libraries for parsing XML and RapidXML looks very interesting to me. They have some very impressive benchmarks on their site due to it being a in-situ parser: http://rapidxml.sourceforge.net/ (way faster than most other XML parsers). I think that this is something that can be most useful for many of us. I know that existing boost libs can get this done but probably more complex than an exclusive lib for XML parsing. Anyway, I cannot find samples anywhere and I am not experienced enough to know how to use the lib. This is working code that I have so far (important comments include): #include "../test_utils.hpp" #include "../../rapidxml.hpp" #include "../../rapidxml_utils.hpp" #include "../../rapidxml_print.hpp" #include <string> #include <vector> #include <fstream> #include <stdexcept> #include <cstring> #include <sstream> using namespace std; void test() { char xml[] = "<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"latin-1\"?>" "<book>" "</book>"; //Parse the original document rapidxml::xml_document<> doc; // character type defaults to char doc.parse<0>(xml); // 0 means default parse flags // doc object is now a root of DOM tree containing representation of the parsed XML. // Because all RapidXml interface is contained inside namespace rapidxml, users must either bring contents of this namespace into scope, or fully qualify all the names. // Class xml_document represents a root of the DOM hierarchy. By means of public inheritance, it is also an xml_node and a memory_pool. // Template parameter of xml_document::parse() function is used to specify parsing flags, with which you can fine-tune behaviour of the parser. // Note that flags must be a compile-time constant. // To access the DOM tree, use methods of xml_node and xml_attribute classes: std::cout << "Name of my first node is: " << doc.first_node()->name() << "\n"; // Name of my first node is: book // This works but is less descriptive than 'Create proper node type' below //rapidxml::xml_node<> *node; // Create proper node type rapidxml::xml_node<char> *node = 0; node = doc.allocate_node(/*rapidxml::node_declaration*/ rapidxml::node_element, "author", "John Doe"); doc.first_node()->append_node(node); node = doc.allocate_node(rapidxml::node_element, "author", "Jane Doe"); doc.first_node()->append_node(node); node = doc.allocate_node(rapidxml::node_element, "author", "Bob Doe"); doc.first_node()->append_node(node); std::stringstream ss; ss << *doc.first_node(); std::string result_xml = ss.str(); std::cout <<result_xml<<std::endl; } int main() { test(); return 0; } I just don't have the skill to figure out how to use this. If anyone can provide some beginner snippets on how to use this library, it would be much appreciated. Idiot proof snippets on how to add, edit, delete with comments would be awsome. Thank you -- ELKNews FREE Edition - Empower your News Reader! http://www.atozedsoftware.com

4 5

linking error while using Boost-regex and Stlport in the same project
by ashish 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

> Hi, I'm working on a project which needs both boost-regex, and STLPORT. When these two libraries are used individually for some sample examples, they work fine. But when used both in the same project, I get linking errors as follows: >______________________________________________________________________ main/main.cpp:6: instantiated from here /home/kpendyal/software/STLport-5.1.5/stlport/stl/_algobase.c:374: warning: unused parameter '__comp2' /usr/bin/ld: warning: libstdc++.so.5, needed by /home/kpendyal/software/xerces-c_2_8_0/lib/libxerces-c.so, may conflict with libstdc++.so.6 main/main.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9re_detail12perl_matcherIPKcN8stlp_ std9allocatorINS_9sub_matchIS3_EEEENS_12regex_traitsIcNS_16cpp_regex_ traitsIcEEEEE11match_matchEv+0xa3): In function `boost::re_detail::perl_matcher<char const*, stlp_std::allocator<boost::sub_match<char const*> >, boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > >::match_match()': : undefined reference to `boost::match_results<char const*, stlp_std::allocator<boost::sub_match<char const*> > >::maybe_assign(boost::match_results<char const*, stlp_std::allocator<boost::sub_match<char const*> > > const&)' main/main.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost12regex_searchIPKcN8stlp_ std9allocatorINS_9sub_matchIS2_EEEEcNS_12regex_traitsIcNS_16cpp_ regex_traitsIcEEEEEEbT_SC_RNS_13match_resultsISC_T0_EERKNS_11basic_ regexIT1_T2_EENS_15regex_constants12_match_flagsESC_+0x8e): In function `bool boost::regex_search<char const*, stlp_std::allocator<boost::sub_match<char const*> >, char, boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_ traits<char> > >(char const*, char const*, boost::match_results<char const*, stlp_std::allocator<boost::sub_match<char const*> > >&, boost::basic_ regex<char, boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > > const&, boost::regex_constants::_match_flags, char const*)': : undefined reference to `boost::re_detail::perl_matcher<char const*, stlp_std::allocator<boost::sub_match<char const*> >, boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > >::construct_init(boost::basic_regex<char, boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > > const&, boost::regex_constants::_match_flags)' main/main.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9re_detail11raise_errorINS_ 20regex_traits_wrapperINS_12regex_traitsIcNS_16cpp_regex_ traitsIcEEEEEEEEvRKT_NS_15regex_constants10error_typeE+0xa3): In function `void boost::re_detail::raise_error<boost::regex_traits_wrapper<boost::regex_ traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > > >(boost::regex_traits_wrapper<boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > > const&, boost::regex_constants::error _type)': : undefined reference to `boost::re_detail::raise_runtime_error(stlp_std::runtime _error const&)' main/main.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9re_detail18basic_regex _parserIcNS_12regex_traitsIcNS_16cpp_regex_traitsIcEEEEE4failENS_ 15regex_constants10error_typeEi+0x108): In function `boost::re_detail::basic_regex_parser<char, boost::regex_traits<char, boost::cpp_regex_traits<char> > >::fail(boost::regex_constants::error_type, int)': : undefined reference to `boost::regex_error::regex_error(stlp_std::basic_string<char, stlp_std::char_traits<char>, stlp_std::allocator<char> > const&, boost::regex_constants::error_type, int)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [ctoolkit] Error 1 ______________________________________________________________________ > > I tried to build boost with STLPORT, but never could get the library with '-p' in it's name, which I suppose is required here. How can I get it, or is there some other way???? Please help asap... >

4 8

[thread] targetting win32 in cygwin/mingw
by JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi, We're having some problems in the Boost testing lists setting up a mingw environment to target Win32 when building Boost.Thread, please see the thread starting at: http://lists.boost.org/boost-testing/2008/12/6068.php Is there any documented (or undocumented) way to do this? We've been playing with DBOOST_THREAD_WIN32 and BOOST_HAS_WINTHREADS to no avail. Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

2 1