"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message news:e2bn7h$s8v$1@sea.gmane.org...
Make up you mind finally. What is your library?
1. Runtime parameter facility 2. Permanent storage facility 3. XML parser
I'm afraid it is all 3, plus some more. By "some more" I mean it has more parsers than just XML, and it can also be used to manipulate hierarchical, human readable data structures at runtime.
And that's the main problem with this submission. Instead of clearly specified problem domain and design that address issue in this domain, you present some mixture of half-good components each with unclear advantages over existing dedicated solution in each respective area. I want faster search or no search at all - no can do. I want different some versioning support for permanent storage - no can do. I want some automatic validation and conflict resolution - no can do. I understand it's good enough for you. But this is just the choices you made. Coupling solution for independent problems under the hood on one library is the source of inflexibility and unacceptable for boost IMO. We do need good tree storage. We do need better runtime parameters support library (IMO). We already have quite powerful solution for permanent storage support, but we could use more archive formats for it. What you propose is none of it. Gennadiy