Potentially include xproc library in boost?
Hi, I've tried sending an email about this already and no one responded from what I can tell. I guess because I was saying way too much. I was wondering if this code of mine could potentially be added to boost. xproc/process.cpp at main · time-killer-games/xproc (github.com)https://github.com/time-killer-games/xproc/blob/main/apiprocess/process.cpp It lets you get process information from foreign processes on a lot of platforms. Thanks. Samuel [https://opengraph.githubassets.com/b27d922324c973dacc517314510a40f1739ffa179...]https://github.com/time-killer-games/xproc/blob/main/apiprocess/process.cpp xproc/process.cpp at main · time-killer-games/xprochttps://github.com/time-killer-games/xproc/blob/main/apiprocess/process.cpp Contribute to time-killer-games/xproc development by creating an account on GitHub. github.com
I think it would make a good standalone library, since it's not concerned with subprocesses as such, but it's more something like a process manager. But in order to get it'll need a lot of work, you'll need a lot of work (e.g. adopting it to the coding standards etc., docs, tests, etc.) boost has a review process, which you can review here https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html In order for a library to become part of boost, you'll need a review manager that submits it for review on this mailing list. I am not sure if the lack of responses to your email indicates little interest in this library however. I seem to remember one review rejecting boost.process because it did not have those features, leading me to conclude that there is some interest. It would be worth finding out how much though. On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 1:34 PM Samuel Venable via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Hi,
I've tried sending an email about this already and no one responded from what I can tell. I guess because I was saying way too much.
I was wondering if this code of mine could potentially be added to boost.
xproc/process.cpp at main · time-killer-games/xproc (github.com)< https://github.com/time-killer-games/xproc/blob/main/apiprocess/process.cpp
It lets you get process information from foreign processes on a lot of platforms.
Thanks. Samuel [ https://opengraph.githubassets.com/b27d922324c973dacc517314510a40f1739ffa179... ]< https://github.com/time-killer-games/xproc/blob/main/apiprocess/process.cpp
xproc/process.cpp at main · time-killer-games/xproc< https://github.com/time-killer-games/xproc/blob/main/apiprocess/process.cpp
Contribute to time-killer-games/xproc development by creating an account on GitHub. github.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 6/08/2022 20:35, Klemens Morgenstern wrote:
I am not sure if the lack of responses to your email indicates little interest in this library however. I seem to remember one review rejecting boost.process because it did not have those features, leading me to conclude that there is some interest. It would be worth finding out how much though.
Perhaps then it may be useful to approach the maintainer of Boost.Process about the possibility of integrating the functionality into that? While they are somewhat different responsibilities, they do share some common themes. And while I'm not sure if it's actually easier to integrate a large feature into an existing library vs. introducing a separate library, it is at least an alternative hill that could be climbed.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, being a part of boost process. Though he wanted me to share what everyone thought about it. I'm fine with however it gets added or doesn't. Any route is a step forward for me. Even if it gets rejected, I can look into publishing it to package managers myself.
________________________________
From: Boost
I am not sure if the lack of responses to your email indicates little interest in this library however. I seem to remember one review rejecting boost.process because it did not have those features, leading me to conclude that there is some interest. It would be worth finding out how much though.
Perhaps then it may be useful to approach the maintainer of Boost.Process about the possibility of integrating the functionality into that? While they are somewhat different responsibilities, they do share some common themes. And while I'm not sure if it's actually easier to integrate a large feature into an existing library vs. introducing a separate library, it is at least an alternative hill that could be climbed. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (3)
-
Gavin Lambert -
Klemens Morgenstern -
Samuel Venable