From: Gordon Woodhull <gordon@woodhull.com> On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Henrik Sundberg <storangen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Gordon Woodhull <gordon@woodhull.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Vicente BOTET <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I don't like the OO design. I think that a more generic approach could be
applied to this domain, and add a dynamic approach in top of the static one. ... The library should be redesigned with a generic approach and the interfaces be more user friendly and safe. I know the author is against the generic approach so I don't expect he will change later on if the library is accepted.
+1
Sorry, no review this time, just an opinion from following discussion and reading the rationale.
Looks like a useful library but I think it could take another revision. Again, apologies for no real review. & thanks to Artyom and Chad.
Does this mean that you prefer to have no locale library instead of this one in Boost?
No, I mean I would like to see Artyom try to address some of the design concerns and try again.
The OO design is central part of Boost.Locale, there are way-many reasons behind - mostly too keep as much freedom as possible in implementation of local culture requirements. This isn't going to be changed in future revisions. I would likely add some streaming interface where it is needed, I can reasonably improve some other interfaces but this would not be "generic" programming library as it can't be. It is not because I don't like templates or I don't see some things. It just does not fit this library needs and patterns. So this would not be changed. Boost.Locale is object oriented library and will remain so whether it will be part of boost or it will be release as independent library outside boost's namespace.
Artyom likes his design better (as I understand it). He's probably not the one to write the library you want.
Almost everyone likes their own design better, but the best authors are willing to consider new ideas. Artyom seems to have a good attitude about the smaller issues and I hope he'll think about the big picture too, whether or not the library's accepted.
I do consider valuable inputs I had received and many of them will be included. However the big picture will not change because. If somebody thinks that it is possible to implement useful localization library using non-OOP design, he is welcome to write his own. Then after learning the localization topics, libraries and APIs much deeper he would likely see the bigger picture and understand the rationale behind the design decisions I had done. It may be not obvious for some, but not everything in C++ should be done via generic programming. (BTW I really can't believe that I hear that something is too object oriented...)
Boost accepts different libraries solving the same problem. Isn't this library good enough to be such alternative?
Especially since there is no other alternative at all for the moment (or in the foreseeable future).
I sympathize with what you're saying, but I think it's worthwhile to put libraries through multiple reviews if there's a chance of getting a much better designed library in the process. Cf. Xint, Process.
It really depends on what reviewers ask. If I think that the request wouldn't do any good to the library it would be rejected with proper rationale. Best Regards, Artyom