[review] Fast track review of Boost.Utility/Singleton - rejected for now
Hi all,
We've gotten a lot of feedback on the Boost.Utility/Singleton. It's
clear that such an addition would be beneficial to Boost, but I've
chosen to reject the library at this time.
Summary:
- 4 positive reviews
- 4 negative reviews
Phil Endecott - yes
Nat Goodspeed - yes
Dherring[@]ll[]mit[]edu - yes
Ingolf Steinbach - yes
Anthony Williams - no
Gennady - no
Pierre-Jules Tremblay - no
Michael Marcin - no
The main concern was that the library is not flexible enough, and that
it imposes too many things on the users (like, if BOOST_HAS_THREADS is
defined, the singleton is automatically thread-safe).
I would like to see this into Boost, so I hope Tobias will update the
library, given all this feedback, and I would suggest another review in
2-3 months. I'd like to be the review manager then as well, if Tobias
will still want me.
Suggestions:
* Should use policies to specify creation/destruction, access to
singleton, resurection
For creation/destruction, one should be able to have
singleton
These are very sad news. I started to use it in my current project and am
highly satisfied with it for my current needs. I hope that the interface
(accessing the singleton) would remain the same.
With Kind Regards,
Ovanes
On Jan 29, 2008 1:03 PM, John Torjo
Hi all,
We've gotten a lot of feedback on the Boost.Utility/Singleton. It's clear that such an addition would be beneficial to Boost, but I've chosen to reject the library at this time.
Summary: - 4 positive reviews - 4 negative reviews
Phil Endecott - yes Nat Goodspeed - yes Dherring[@]ll[]mit[]edu - yes Ingolf Steinbach - yes Anthony Williams - no Gennady - no Pierre-Jules Tremblay - no Michael Marcin - no
The main concern was that the library is not flexible enough, and that it imposes too many things on the users (like, if BOOST_HAS_THREADS is defined, the singleton is automatically thread-safe).
I would like to see this into Boost, so I hope Tobias will update the library, given all this feedback, and I would suggest another review in 2-3 months. I'd like to be the review manager then as well, if Tobias will still want me.
Suggestions: * Should use policies to specify creation/destruction, access to singleton, resurection For creation/destruction, one should be able to have singleton
, singleton< synchronized<T> >, singleton< thread_specific<T> > * example for DLL support * more detailed docs As for the next review of the library, I will talk to Tobias, and let the review wizard know. Thanks to Tobias, for the lib, and to all that participated to the review!
Best, John - Review Manager -
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
These are very sad news. I started to use it in my current project and am highly satisfied with it for my current needs. I hope that the interface (accessing the singleton) would remain the same.
Do you mean just the function name, or more? Best, John -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right
I mean the idea of defining the singleton type
struct my_singleton : boost::singleton
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
These are very sad news. I started to use it in my current project and am highly satisfied with it for my current needs. I hope that the interface (accessing the singleton) would remain the same.
Do you mean just the function name, or more?
Best, John
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
participants (2)
-
John Torjo
-
Ovanes Markarian