< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index Next in Thread >

RE: [reSIProcate] RE: Boost and resiprocate


The reason for the suggestion to use Boost was its strong
affinity with the C++ standardization process.  I think
its not unreasonable to say using another variation of
smart pointers is taking us further from a component
this is highly likely to become an accepted standard.
Using Boost sub components that are well down the ANSI 
C++ TR track sends a strong message about a willingness 
to commit to emerging standards.

Early adopters of STL had this adavantage once STL
transformed to became part of ANSI C++.

However I do conceed this is an argument for Boost 
smart pointers not against VOCAL smart pointers.  I think
Scott's plan might be a good compromise until standardization
occurs or until there is a growing need for more reuse.

Having said that however ...

My experience with Boost suggests that once more complex software
such as the repro is created Boost spreads rapidly because of its
inherent reusability and utility hence it's probably a good
time to talk about it while once release comes to completion and
another is being discussed.

Thanks
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: kaiduan xie [mailto:kaiduanx@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:49 AM
To: Scott Godin; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Karl Mutch
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] RE: Boost and resiprocate


I think one of the resiprocate's design philosophy is
to be self-contained at the beginning (it only depends
on ARES). I still prefer to use VOVCAL's
implementation for smart pointer, I have not found any
reason why VOCAL's implementation can not be used for
this case. Scott, can you take a look at VOCAL's
implementation.

Best Regards,

kaiduan
--- Scott Godin <slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> This might not be a bad plan.  I think there are
> differing opinions amongst
> the resip developers on this one.  If this does
> indeed become generally
> accepted at some time, then it won't take make to
> switch all references from
> the resip namespace shared pointer to the boost one.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Mutch [mailto:kmutch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:31 AM
> To: slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Boost and resiprocate
> 
> For the longer term outlook would it not be better
> to more widely adopt
> boost
> once the May release is complete as specific
> components such as the smart
> pointers
> are up for review by the standards committee and are
> likely to pass through 
> into the standard?
> 
> Thanks
> Karl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> 

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca