[future] @Tom -> review result?
as Vicente lready ask - what is the result of the future review?! @Tom could you confirm that you are still working on the review summary?
Yes, i'm still working on it. I've created a test framework that explores issues that I'm concerned about. For the most part, I'm more concerned about the bigger picture and how parralel programming is added to boost. There are many issues that will need to be considered. The story of parralel programming is still evolving and needs the input of many more people who have practical real world experience, particularly about task managment. Of course, you can still comment on how you would like to procceed. Unfortunately, as far as this review goes, I would have liked to see many more comments and reviews.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:58 PM Subject: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
as Vicente lready ask - what is the result of the future review?! @Tom could you confirm that you are still working on the review summary?
Yes, i'm still working on it. I've created a test framework that explores issues that I'm concerned about.
For the most part, I'm more concerned about the bigger picture and how parralel programming is added to boost. There are many issues that will need to be considered. The story of parralel programming is still evolving and needs the input of many more people who have practical real world experience, particularly about task managment.
Of course, you can still comment on how you would like to procceed.
Unfortunately, as far as this review goes, I would have liked to see many more comments and reviews.
Hi, I'm sure that the library interest a lot of boosters. As you have heard, some of them found the context and goal of the review not enough clear. What about starting the review again setting up cleary the context of the review? Could you and the authors discuss if this can be organized? I realy think that freezing this library will have as consequence the freeze of at least these libraries: ThreadPool, AsynchronousExecutors, Threader/Joiner (both included for the moment in Interthreads), Active Object ... Thanks, Vicente
Hi, only my two cents. "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:BA9AA9528EC44F3381F7F97AB66066DE@viboes1...
I'm sure that the library interest a lot of boosters. As you have heard, some of them found the context and goal of the review not enough clear. What about starting the review again setting up cleary the context of the review? Could you and the authors discuss if this can be organized?
Yes, definitely. We should only review one library at a time. As the future library interface is already standardized, we should require that the library does conform to this interface. After such a library is successfully reviewed in a next step additions could be considered. Is my impression correct that one of the authors is not on this list anymore? If so, does it make sense to review this particular library? On the other side, I would like to see that the authors merge their efforts if possible. Generally, if we review libraries that are already standardized, I would prefere that we do not review the interface but the documentation and implementation of the contribution. What I try to say, is that IMHO a 'new' library does need quite a different discussion and review than an already existing library interface. In the last case some agreement about the interface has already found and it is the question whether boost will support such an interface or not. Best, Johannes
participants (3)
-
Johannes Brunen -
Tom Brinkman -
vicente.botet