Jeff Garland <jeff <at> crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
Maciej Sobczak wrote:
Jeff Garland wrote: [...]
Note that I expect the review for SOCI to be tough because it's a fairly large and complex domain/lib. So we ought to ask the review manager for a longer review right up front.
That's reasonable.
Seems like you might want to get in the queue now...
[...]
The SOCI library stands out a bit in the crowd thanks to its basic interfacing assumptions. Some users love it exactly because of its interface and some others hate it exactly for the same reason.
This already proved to be a recipe for heat generator.
Hmm, I guess my memory of this is short. I can't do anything at the moment since I'm already over committed, but I'll try to do an informal review over the holidays to ferret out any issues.
Isn't this an instance of a more general problem? Existing libraries that are being considered for submission to Boost should get a sort of pre-review so that their developers may tackle the emerging issues while they proceed with Boostification, rather than after the fact. Should worse come to worse they'd be in a position to decide to pospone or give up their submission before investing too much effort into it. I wonder if such pre-reviews should be given some official status, if just to try and attract a higher number of reviewers. Cheers, Nicola Musatti