"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message news:443983B2.1080604@crystalclearsoftware.com...
Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++ Standards Committee met last week in Berlin, Germany. Of interest to Boosters:
Thx for the update -- interesting as usual. Looks like the committee was busy!
* A Boost Date-Time query was presented at the last meeting, and LWG members again in Berlin indicated interest in seeing a full proposal for TR2.
The complete date-time proposal will be available for Portland and I expect to be at the meeting as well.
Excellent!
* A Boost Networking [asio] query was presented, and the LWG has indicated their interest in a full proposal for TR2. The developer of a competing proposal has graciously thrown his support behind the Boost proposal, and may propose some additional higher level functionality.
I have some interest and concerns about the asio as a pure networking proposal -- it's really an io library proposal with networking. As such, there are some issues not currently addressed by the library that I can see the committee being worried about. In any case, I can see Chris needing a helping hand to get this done in time -- presuming that he is still able to pursue this deadline.
N1974 Boost Network Library Query from Chris will appear in the post-meeting mailing, which will be available in two or three weeks. Chris was aware of the October deadline at the time he wrote his query.
Can you point us to the competing proposal/developer?
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1925.pdf
... I'd still really like to see a database binding library make it into TR2. Not having this is killing C++ against Java for application developers. We've had some periodic fits and starts, but it seems clear we won't have a Boost library by then. I'd still like to see someone with some time step up and take this on. It's been done about 10 times so I think a proposal could be gleaned from the best of the current bindings...
My guess is the LWG and the committee would welcome such a proposal. Note that the October meeting deadline is for a proposal that includes proposed wording for the TR. The wording does not have to be 100% complete - as long as it is pretty good it would be sufficient to meet the October deadline. The LWG would almost certainly require a reference implementation, and some actual use in real-world applications, but that doesn't have to have happened by October as long as the proposal in generally based on existing practice. If a reference implementation was available on Boost and starting to get real-world use by spring 2007, that should be good enough if the library looks good otherwise. --Beman