On 10 Oct 2013 at 13:07, Roger Sanders wrote:
What I wanted to get an idea on is whether there is any interest in having something like this included as part of boost? Perhaps there's enough scope here for a general "marshalling" library, that would address some other similar concerns in the future? There would be a fair amount of work to do in order to "boostify" the library and write the corresponding documentation, but I'd be willing to do it if there was interest. Any feedback, thoughts, criticisms?
Me personally, I would absolutely just *love* for this library to enter Boost. Let me quickly explain why: I'm hoping, if possible, to eventually implement a standard component object layer for C++. A large part of such an implementation is STL implementation interop i.e. that across component object boundaries where component objects use different versions of an STL, or different STLs entirely, a limited amount of STL container conversion is performed. My design also allows for components compiled using one compiler e.g. Visual Studio using Dinkumware generating a PE DLL on Windows, to be equally treated by a Linux program compiled using GCC with libstdc++ i.e. a Linux program can use Windows binaries, and vice versa (obviously only if no platform specific code is used e.g. STL only). Your library, if ported to Boost, would shave a huge chunk off the work I'd need to do, so very much yes please. (FYI there was a presentation at C++ Now 2013 on a topic very similar to your library by John Bandela "Easy Binary Compatible C++ Interfaces Across Compilers". See https://github.com/boostcon/cppnow_presentations_2013/blob/master/tue/ easy_binary_compat.pdf?raw=true. It might be worth you touching base with him). Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/