Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Property Tree Library
*>What value does the library have, if there are no parsers to get
a property tree from or to write it back to a file?
* I fully agree with this point. Removing the parsers from the review makes the library essentially useless. They are an important part of the functionality the library provides. A simple string tree is not enough functionality to be relevant; if only a tree was to be submitted, I'd expect it to be a fully generic tree.
Please, RE-READ what I said. I want this review broken up into two parts. I said nothing about the value of this library being useless without the parsers. Thorsten, please contact me off-list about this.
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Please, RE-READ what I said. I want this review broken up into two parts. I said nothing about the value of this library being useless without the parsers.
I understood it perfectly well. However, you also stated that the parsers should come in at a later point. Thus my point still applies, if only for limited time. However, that time is crucial. If there is a Boost release (1.35) that includes the tree, but not the parser, people might get used to that "useless property_tree thing" and not care to look at its improved value in 1.36. Bad reputations tend to stick. Also, the way I understood your post, your objection to the parsers was that they are a completely separate thing from the tree and thus should not be reviewed together. I find this objection simply wrong. The parsers are a very important part of the property_tree library, and IMO it's just its inappropriate name that makes them seem misplaced. Sebastian Redl
Tom Brinkman wrote:
*>What value does the library have, if there are no parsers to get
a property tree from or to write it back to a file?
* I fully agree with this point. Removing the parsers from the review makes the library essentially useless. They are an important part of the functionality the library provides. A simple string tree is not enough functionality to be relevant; if only a tree was to be submitted, I'd expect it to be a fully generic tree.
Please, RE-READ what I said. I want this review broken up into two parts. I said nothing about the value of this library being useless without the parsers.
Thorsten, please contact me off-list about this.
Sorry, it's just too late to break the review up into two now. If I had demanded that, I think there would have been a great chance that Marcin wouldn't submit anything. If you think the tree is great, but the parsers suck, then just vote no, or (preferably) say what's wrong with them: is the interface? is it the implementation? is it correctness? is it speed? -Thorsten
participants (3)
-
Sebastian Redl -
Thorsten Ottosen -
Tom Brinkman