[review] Fast track review of Boost.Utility/Singleton - rejected for now

John Torjo <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.boost.announce
Message-ID <479F1624.3060403__24648.4184325256$1201610871$gmane$org@torjo.com>
Hi all,

We've gotten a lot of feedback on the Boost.Utility/Singleton. It's 
clear that such an addition would be beneficial to Boost, but I've 
chosen to reject the library at this time.

Summary:
- 4 positive reviews
- 4 negative reviews

Phil Endecott - yes
Nat Goodspeed - yes
Dherring[@]ll[]mit[]edu - yes
Ingolf Steinbach - yes
Anthony Williams - no
Gennady - no
Pierre-Jules Tremblay - no
Michael Marcin - no

The main concern was that the library is not flexible enough, and that 
it imposes too many things on the users (like, if BOOST_HAS_THREADS is 
defined, the singleton is automatically thread-safe).

I would like to see this into Boost, so I hope Tobias will update the 
library, given all this feedback, and I would suggest another review in 
2-3 months. I'd like to be the review manager then as well, if Tobias 
will still want me.

Suggestions:
* Should use policies to specify creation/destruction, access to 
singleton, resurection
  For creation/destruction, one should be able to have
  singleton<single_thread<T> >, singleton< synchronized<T> >, singleton< 
thread_specific<T> >
* example for DLL support
* more detailed docs


As for the next review of the library, I will talk to Tobias, and let 
the review wizard know.
Thanks to Tobias, for the lib, and to all that participated to the review!


Best,
John
- Review Manager -


-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
... call me only if you want things done right


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-announce
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.