[Review] Fixed strings library
Hi all, the formal review period of the Fixed strings library written by Reece Dunn ends today. Since there was complete consent with regard to this library among all submitted reviews, it is straight forward for me to make the final decision. The library is rejected and will not be included into Boost at this point in time. The main points listed during review were: - Do we need a fixed_string library at all, is it worth the overhead? - Insufficient/confusing documentation . insufficient description of general design, design rationales and motivations . it says more about implementation details rather then the public interface . missing or insufficient documentation of parts of the library - The overall architecture of the implementation is too complicated and needs to be reworked - Missing interface for construction/interaction with std::string's - Unclear benefit to have the strings truncated to avoid overflows - Missing performance comparison with std::string and other alternatives - Compilation problems with the library as submitted for review Reece already expressed his interest to resubmit the library for review again, after he has been able to address the mention issues. I'ld like to thank Reece for submitting this library and all reviewers for their time they invested in preparing the reviews. Regards Hartmut Review Manager
"Hartmut Kaiser" wrote [...]
The main points listed during review were: - Do we need a fixed_string library at all, is it worth the overhead? - Insufficient/confusing documentation . insufficient description of general design, design rationales and motivations . it says more about implementation details rather then the public interface . missing or insufficient documentation of parts of the library - The overall architecture of the implementation is too complicated and needs to be reworked - Missing interface for construction/interaction with std::string's - Unclear benefit to have the strings truncated to avoid overflows - Missing performance comparison with std::string and other alternatives - Compilation problems with the library as submitted for review
I'm wondering if this doesnt bring up a point regarding this review. In hindsight was fixed_strings ready for review? http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Review_Manager In hindsight ,which is a wonderful thing, shouldnt review manager have stopped fixed_strings review? Can review manger stop a review? I say this not to criticise Hartmut( I hope that experience as review manager will mean he will be interested to do the job again), but to enhance the character of the review managers role and point up this case as one example of what pitfalls review manager should look out for when thinking about future review requests. Also to Reece. Do you think in hindsight ficed-strings is review ready? I'd like to clarify this as I hope to submit a library of my own some day. It brings up the question of when is a library in a fit state regards Andy Little
Andy Little wrote:
The main points listed during review were: - Do we need a fixed_string library at all, is it worth the overhead? - Insufficient/confusing documentation . insufficient description of general design, design rationales and motivations . it says more about implementation details rather then the public interface . missing or insufficient documentation of parts of the library - The overall architecture of the implementation is too complicated and needs to be reworked - Missing interface for construction/interaction with std::string's - Unclear benefit to have the strings truncated to avoid overflows - Missing performance comparison with std::string and other alternatives - Compilation problems with the library as submitted for review
I'm wondering if this doesnt bring up a point regarding this review. In hindsight was fixed_strings ready for review?
http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Review_Manager
In hindsight ,which is a wonderful thing, shouldnt review manager have stopped fixed_strings review? Can review manger stop a review?
I say this not to criticise Hartmut( I hope that experience as review manager will mean he will be interested to do the job again), but to enhance the character of the review managers role and point up this case as one example of what pitfalls review manager should look out for when thinking about future review requests.
Frankly, I was thinking about not to start the review for this library. And from todays point of view I shouldn't have done so. It's a learning curve for me as well and I certainly will be more proactive in this direction in the future. In the end I decided to start the review regardless of the problems because I thought (and I still think) it's worth to have discussions about the kind of paradigm the Fixed Strings library represents and even if we had these concrete problems we also have had some very interesting and clearifying discussions on this topic. Regards Hartmut
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Andy Little wrote:
I'm wondering if this doesnt bring up a point regarding this review. In hindsight was fixed_strings ready for review?
http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Review_Manager
In hindsight ,which is a wonderful thing, shouldnt review manager have stopped fixed_strings review? Can review manger stop a review?
I say this not to criticise Hartmut( I hope that experience as review manager will mean he will be interested to do the job again), but to enhance the character of the review managers role and point up this case as one example of what pitfalls review manager should look out for when thinking about future review requests.
Frankly, I was thinking about not to start the review for this library. And from todays point of view I shouldn't have done so. It's a learning curve for me as well and I certainly will be more proactive in this direction in the future.
In the end I decided to start the review regardless of the problems because I thought (and I still think) it's worth to have discussions about the kind of paradigm the Fixed Strings library represents and even if we had these concrete problems we also have had some very interesting and clearifying discussions on this topic.
When developing the library and discussing it on the list, I got some feedback, but that was different to the comments I got here. Because of this review, I have a list of areas in the design and documentation that need to be reworked in order to get it to review quality. This is a learning curve for me that will help me write better code and a better library in the future. I know that the library has been rejected for now, but there has been some discussion whether the library is actually needed as Dave pointed out. As Andy Little notes, there *is* interest in the library, so there appears to be a need for it. See you for round two :) - Reece
"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
I know that the library has been rejected for now, but there has been some discussion whether the library is actually needed as Dave pointed out. As Andy Little notes, there *is* interest in the library, so there appears to be a need for it.
Interest does not necessarily indicate a need. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
"Hartmut Kaiser" <hartmut.kaiser@gmail.com> writes:
In the end I decided to start the review regardless of the problems because I thought (and I still think) it's worth to have discussions about the kind of paradigm the Fixed Strings library represents and even if we had these concrete problems we also have had some very interesting and clearifying discussions on this topic.
Agreed. But such discussions need not occupy a review slot, which could be used for more polished submissions. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (4)
-
Andy Little -
David Abrahams -
Hartmut Kaiser -
Reece Dunn