BOOST C++ Framework [PSARC/2008/752]

[John Fischer]

All,

As per the PSARC business meeting I am closing this 
case as approved since the discussion has concluded.

Thanks,

John

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:21, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> Rainer Orth wrote:
> > Garrett D'Amore writes:
> > 
> >> If I understand correctly, Stefan's response is that minor/micro 
> >> versions are required because there *can* be incompatible changes in the 
> >> Boost libraries from upstream.  That is to say, Boost doesn't guarantee 
> >> binary compatibility, but instead requires developers to code to a 
> >> specific release.
> > 
> > That's what I now found in the BOOST FAQ at
> > 
> > 	http://www.boost.org/users/faq.html
> > 
> > (How can the Boost libraries be used successfully for important projects?)
> > Some postings on their mailing lists indicate that their track record for
> > compatiblity isn't particularly good, even silently breaking compatibility
> > in micro releases (which seem to be rare, though).
> > 
> >> While this may seem unfortunate, its the way Boost developers work, I 
> >> guess.  Its not particularly worse, IMO, than the other problems 
> >> inherent in using C++ when you care about  compatibility.
> > 
> > Seems so, yes.
> 
> This happens mainly because BOOST is, first and foremost, a language research 
> project. The intent is to discover and provide implementations for new language 
> idioms and techniques, and as such, maintaining compatibility takes a second 
> seat. The consistency and compatibility aspect is addressed by including BOOST 
> components in the Language Standard, at which point these components acquire the 
> expected Interface Stability Classification commitment.
> 
> --Stefan
> 
> -- 
> Stefan Teleman
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
>