Re: Proposal for STDCXX
At 10:10 PM 6/1/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:55:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> I'm willing to serve as either mentor or ppmc member, as you will. >> +1 to STDCXX -entering- incubation. > >Glad to hear it. You can help me and Ben help them. =) > >It's been pointed out that mentors should be on the Incubator PMC. So, if >you want to do this, we need to go through the process of adding you to the >PMC. (If this is an issue, please let me know; otherwise, I'll start that >process in the next day or so.) Feel free. I've gone through this grind once on the other end :) >> One point, is STDCXX a Mark of Rouge Waves', or is it your newly >> invented name? We avoid adopting other marks (we have, but with >> lots of extra, ugly paperwork.) Before the project is chartered >> I'd like to see it incubated under its future name. > >AFAIK, this was a new working name that Rogue Wave came up with just for the >purposes of Incubation. I believe that once incubation is started, there will >be a discussion about picking a more permanent name. However, that discussion >is best held off until all the mailing lists are set up. -- justin Coolness. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:55:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > I'm willing to serve as either mentor or ppmc member, as you will. > +1 to STDCXX -entering- incubation. Glad to hear it. You can help me and Ben help them. =) It's been pointed out that mentors should be on the Incubator PMC. So, if you want to do this, we need to go through the process of adding you to the PMC. (If this is an issue, please let me know; otherwise, I'll start that process in the next day or so.) > One point, is STDCXX a Mark of Rouge Waves', or is it your newly > invented name? We avoid adopting other marks (we have, but with > lots of extra, ugly paperwork.) Before the project is chartered > I'd like to see it incubated under its future name. AFAIK, this was a new working name that Rogue Wave came up with just for the purposes of Incubation. I believe that once incubation is started, there will be a discussion about picking a more permanent name. However, that discussion is best held off until all the mailing lists are set up. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
At 06:45 PM 6/1/2005, Martin Sebor wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >>Can you give us a sense of the 'currently' supported platforms >>and compilers? > >The C++ Standard Library project has been ported to the following >compilers and operating systems:[...] That said, I'm suitably impressed with how thorough the incoming code is and how well it's been considered. Obviously endianess, wordsize, alignment and thousands of other little nits hamper such efforts. Kudos on your persistance. I'm willing to serve as either mentor or ppmc member, as you will. +1 to STDCXX -entering- incubation. One point, is STDCXX a Mark of Rouge Waves', or is it your newly invented name? We avoid adopting other marks (we have, but with lots of extra, ugly paperwork.) Before the project is chartered I'd like to see it incubated under its future name. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Proposal for STDCXX
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Technical issues having been commented on ... > in light of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00134.html > and its complete thread. The claims that the ASF has an NIH issue are contradicted by the existance of the Incubator. These aren't projects invented here. They are projects being brought here by their "inventors" because this is where they want to build community, and because the AL is the license that they want to use. And it really shouldn't be surprising that as Open Source penetrates further into the traditional commercial software community, that they choose a vendor friendly partner. > I'd still like to know why this came out, Rogue Wave wanted to, and people here liked the idea enough to sponsor it? > why it came here, At a guess, because of our license and processes. This is born out in part by the proposal: There are other free implementations, but none have the quality, license flexibility, or platform support necessary to serve as a universal foundation for [C++] > and why some other people here like it. What's not to like, if you're a C++ programmer? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 03:43 PM 6/1/2005, Martin Sebor wrote: GNU libstdc++ is a fine implementation of the standard but its big limitation is its dependency on gcc. What differentiates our implementation is its portability to all the other compilers besides gcc, which on most platforms other than Linux is still an inferior choice when compared to the native compiler. Can you give us a sense of the 'currently' supported platforms and compilers? (Obviously, with this mission, the breadth of these would grow with time as an ASF project.) The C++ Standard Library project has been ported to the following compilers and operating systems: Como 4.2.4 through 4.3.3 on Solaris 7 through 9 (SPARC) Compaq C++ 6.3 through 6.5 on Tru64 UNIX (Alpha) EDG eccp 2.45.2 through 3.5 on Solaris 7 through 9 (SPARC) and Linux (x86) gcc 2.95.2 through 3.4.3 on HP-UX, Linux (x86, x86_64, IA64), Solaris 7 through 10 (x86, SPARC), as well as Cygwin and Interix HP aCC 3.33 through 3.63 on HP-UX 11.00 through 11.23 (PA-RISC) HP aCC 5.50 through 6.01 on HP-UX 11.22 through 11.23 (IPF) IBM VisualAge C++ 5.0 through 7.0 on AIX and Linux (PowerPC) Intel C++ 7.0 through 8.1 on Linux and Windows (x86, x86_64, IA64) MIPSpro 7.3 through 7.4 on IRIX64 (MIPS) MSVC 6.0 through 7.1 on Windows (x86, x86_64, IA64) SunPro 5.3 through 5.7 on Solaris 6 through 10 (x86, x86_64, SPARC) Ports to other platforms such MVS, OS/390, Siemens Reliant/CDS++, VMS, and z/OS have also been done, although they are not being maintained on the development branch. The tarball that's on our Web page(*) is a snapshot of the development branch tested at the time on most (although not all) of the platforms above. (*) http://www.roguewave.com/opensource/ Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
At 03:43 PM 6/1/2005, Martin Sebor wrote: >GNU libstdc++ is a fine implementation of the standard but its >big limitation is its dependency on gcc. What differentiates >our implementation is its portability to all the other compilers >besides gcc, which on most platforms other than Linux is still >an inferior choice when compared to the native compiler. Can you give us a sense of the 'currently' supported platforms and compilers? (Obviously, with this mission, the breadth of these would grow with time as an ASF project.) Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- ... There's at least one open implementation out there now: the GNU STL. What differentiates the RW codebase from the GNU one? If there are bugs or performance, uh, deficiencies in the GNU one, why not submit the changes to the gcc crowd? GNU libstdc++ is a fine implementation of the standard but its big limitation is its dependency on gcc. What differentiates our implementation is its portability to all the other compilers besides gcc, which on most platforms other than Linux is still an inferior choice when compared to the native compiler. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Heidi Buelow wrote: > > Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library > > Submission date: 12 May 2005, Tim Triemstra, Heidi Buelow (TimT @ RogueWave > dot-com, Buelow @ RogueWave dot-com) > > (0) rationale > > The goal of the Apache C++ Standard Library project is to provide a free > implementation of the ISO/EIC 14882 international standard, often called the > "STL" or "stdlib", which is consistent and portable across all major > platforms and compilers. For the sake of this proposal, the project will be > called "STDCXX" to blend in with other Apache names. > > Currently, C++ developers spend considerable effort porting code among > platforms, as compiler vendors are focused on backward compatibility rather > than cross-platform portability. There are other free implementations, but > none have the quality, license flexibility, or platform support necessary to > serve as a universal foundation for the C++ language. Not to rain on anyone's parade, or to cast doubts in any direction, but I'm curious about motivations. In short, the proposal spells out 'what' -- but I'm curious about 'why.' There's at least one open implementation out there now: the GNU STL. What differentiates the RW codebase from the GNU one? If there are bugs or performance, uh, deficiencies in the GNU one, why not submit the changes to the gcc crowd? And on the other side, what's the 'why' for the people who have expressed +1 on this proposal? I mean no criticism; I'm just curious why they think it would be good to have another open C++ library, and have it at Apache. Particularly in light of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00134.html and its complete thread. I'm not against this at all; in fact, I'm rather in favour of providing open alternatives for just about anything. But I'd still like to know why this came out, why it came here, and why some other people here like it. :-) - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQp4a/ZrNPMCpn3XdAQGPGgQAhdFy9PAUFo9haPp9qdAuYPC9ZWGi3EdQ inBhfK2NWKRN9C8AmNL+sUSXJ6zgtzjIYFxBOgE3Ti9CHwvZxI6OkMRnNDOtOqj1 3CwqmCt43D/gBgRJHwATjHG1KHuzFQXJeHTpJ3AXgXH0HwyAxItPaPT8aNrpiTmm 7hjPT540PuM= =mNBi -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On May 13, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Heidi Buelow wrote: Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library +1 The proposal says that this library has a "complete locale implementation". I'm wondering about the possibilities for code reuse when/if we start on a second generation of apr-iconv. -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:38 PM +0200 Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Justin Erenkrantz (justin @ erenkrantz dot-com) Which is why having another mentor or two might be a good idea? We still haven't ironed out the justin-cloning proces AFAICT :-) I volunteered initially to start the process and have been in contact with the RogueWave folks during the drafting of this proposal. If any other member would like to now volunteer to assist me in this mentoring process going forward, it'd certainly be most appreciated! -- justin I must be nuts, but I volunteer to mentor. In my copious free time. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Proposal for STDCXX
> -Original Message- > From: Heidi Buelow > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 6:40 PM > Ok. I'll have to get back to you on this for the strict legal > requirements. > My understanding is that you are right that this HP statement is not > required in every source file. Justin summarized this correctly already but here it is from me since I said I would get back to you. HP agreed to the notice, it doesn't break ASF requirements, and it is only in some of the files, about a dozen. This is code that HP developed/invented in 1994 or so and it's good to remember and attribute this to HP as it is part of the foundation of the STL from the beginning. It is not going to be expanded on or updated in the future. Hope this helps. Heidi. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On May 13, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Heidi Buelow wrote: Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library +0 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
--On Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:38 PM +0200 Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Justin Erenkrantz (justin @ erenkrantz dot-com) Which is why having another mentor or two might be a good idea? We still haven't ironed out the justin-cloning proces AFAICT :-) I volunteered initially to start the process and have been in contact with the RogueWave folks during the drafting of this proposal. If any other member would like to now volunteer to assist me in this mentoring process going forward, it'd certainly be most appreciated! -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On 13-05-2005 23:27, "Heidi Buelow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library Kewl. Seems like a big undertaking :-) (...) > (5) identify apache sponsoring individual > > Justin Erenkrantz (justin @ erenkrantz dot-com) Which is why having another mentor or two might be a good idea? We still haven't ironed out the justin-cloning proces AFAICT :-) - Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Heidi Buelow wrote: Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library +1. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:27:28PM -0500, Heidi Buelow wrote: > Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library One other comment that I should make now: The APR PMC was privately approached about sponsoring this proposal. The PMC's consensus was that there was not sufficient overlap between APR and this proposal to warrant APR being a 'sponsoring PMC' for this proposal and to house this as a sub-project within APR. Therefore, the intent is for this project to evolve as an independent PMC/TLP. Thanks! -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:02:07PM -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > I saw the HP licensing note below, which seems fine; but, if the > library was provided by other vendors, can you clarify the state of > any other IP claims on the initial contribution? I've been informed that Rogue Wave and HP are the only remaining copyright holders. HP has agreed to the legal notice that was listed in the proposal. > When you say "the code will be contributed back into the community", > do you mean that Rogue Wave will work on in-house ports and > occasionally drop new versions over the top of what happens to be in > Apache at the time, or that Rogue Wave will be iteratively improving > the code base/ports in collaboration with other committers on the > project? Of course, I'm hoping you mean the latter; but, please > clarify. There's nothing wrong with additional future contributions > (in fact, that's goodness); but periodic replacements of a bunch of > existing code would obviously be disruptive to the other committers. My understanding is that future development will be centered in the Apache codebase. > Hopefully, you'll find some more interest from other folks reading > this thread. Yup, that's the idea. =) > This should be fine, as long as this notice can be placed in the > NOTICE and/or LICENSE file of any distribution, and not required to be > at the top of every source file. I'm not aware what HP's specific terms were. However, I have been told that it only applies to a few files in the codebase and that has HP has requested that the notices be preserved in the file themselves. My understanding is that a copyright notice in a file itself is not a concern for the ASF. I know that httpd and APR have files that bear similar notices for files originating under other copyright but bearing a suitable license (i.e. RSA copyright with BSD style license). > I certainly understand that it takes time once a project is accepted > to align your company's logistics with the Apache infrastructure, but > can you give us an idea of a) roughly how long are you expecting, and > b) will the eventual contribution be significantly different than what > you have posted now? My understanding is that the initial code drop will be imported as soon as the Subversion directories are available (which is dependent upon PMC approval first). Any further reorganization can then occur in Subversion. > > (5) identify apache sponsoring individual > > > > Justin Erenkrantz (justin @ erenkrantz dot-com) > > That says a lot! (in a good way ;-) Ha! =) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:27:28PM -0500, Heidi Buelow wrote: > > Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Proposal for STDCXX
> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 5:02 PM > I saw the HP licensing note below, which seems fine; but, if the > library was provided by other vendors, can you clarify the state of > any other IP claims on the initial contribution? There are no other claims. > When you say "the code will be contributed back into the community", > do you mean that Rogue Wave will work on in-house ports and > occasionally drop new versions over the top of what happens to be in > Apache at the time, or that Rogue Wave will be iteratively improving > the code base/ports in collaboration with other committers on the > project? Of course, I'm hoping you mean the latter; but, please > clarify. There's nothing wrong with additional future contributions > (in fact, that's goodness); but periodic replacements of a bunch of > existing code would obviously be disruptive to the other committers. Any further work on this code base by RW will be in collaboration with other committers; that is, people at RW would be simply committers like anyone else. With this initiative, we are looking forward to working within the Apache community to move this code into an open source resource. > > The license grant given by HP should > > conform to the rules of the ASF license, and is included below: > > > > Copyright (c) 1994 Hewlett-Packard Company > > Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software and > its > > documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided > that > > the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that > copyright > > notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. > > Hewlett-Packard Company makes no representations about the suitability > of > > this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or > > implied warranty. > > This should be fine, as long as this notice can be placed in the > NOTICE and/or LICENSE file of any distribution, and not required to be > at the top of every source file. Ok. I'll have to get back to you on this for the strict legal requirements. My understanding is that you are right that this HP statement is not required in every source file. > I certainly understand that it takes time once a project is accepted > to align your company's logistics with the Apache infrastructure, but > can you give us an idea of a) roughly how long are you expecting, and > b) will the eventual contribution be significantly different than what > you have posted now? The changes we anticipate are organizational only - there are no planned changes to the content. > > (3.3) Bugzilla > > Sure you don't want to use Jira? We'll take the advice of the community on this.we don't have a vested interest in any particular issue tracking system. Heidi. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Heidi, This looks great. A few notes/questions inline below. Cliff On 5/13/05, Heidi Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library > Rogue Wave Software will jump start this project by contributing the > commercial C++ Standard Library it has been shipping for over a decade. This > is a new, enhanced version of the OEM library provided by many vendors, > including ARM, Sun Microsystems, HP and others. I saw the HP licensing note below, which seems fine; but, if the library was provided by other vendors, can you clarify the state of any other IP claims on the initial contribution? > As a side note, Rogue Wave Software intends to continue distributing the > library as part of its SourcePro/C++ product well into the future. This > means that significant effort will continue, especially in porting, and that > effort will directly benefit the open source community since even code > developed to meet commercial requirements will be contributed back into the > community. When you say "the code will be contributed back into the community", do you mean that Rogue Wave will work on in-house ports and occasionally drop new versions over the top of what happens to be in Apache at the time, or that Rogue Wave will be iteratively improving the code base/ports in collaboration with other committers on the project? Of course, I'm hoping you mean the latter; but, please clarify. There's nothing wrong with additional future contributions (in fact, that's goodness); but periodic replacements of a bunch of existing code would obviously be disruptive to the other committers. > Initial Reliance on Salaried Workers: At the time of the initial proposal, > only one external developer has agreed to volunteer as a top-level > contributor. However, in discussions with members of the Apache community, > as well as partners and customers, it is clear that there is already > significant interest. Members of other Apache projects have indicated a > desire to participate and there is optimism that by the time the project is > set to begin more contributors from within Apache and the user community > will be enrolled. Hopefully, you'll find some more interest from other folks reading this thread. > The license grant given by HP should > conform to the rules of the ASF license, and is included below: > > Copyright (c) 1994 Hewlett-Packard Company > Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software and its > documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that > the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright > notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. > Hewlett-Packard Company makes no representations about the suitability of > this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or > implied warranty. This should be fine, as long as this notice can be placed in the NOTICE and/or LICENSE file of any distribution, and not required to be at the top of every source file. > The initial tarball made available on the web site will not be immediately > ready to include in a public CVS/SVN repository. The file set is quite > large, and has significant complexity, especially to support dozens of > platforms out of a single code base. The code and directory structure will > therefore need a thorough review to be sure they are efficiently packaged > for public, group development. We don't expect this to take long, but wanted > to set proper expectations. I certainly understand that it takes time once a project is accepted to align your company's logistics with the Apache infrastructure, but can you give us an idea of a) roughly how long are you expecting, and b) will the eventual contribution be significantly different than what you have posted now? > (3.3) Bugzilla Sure you don't want to use Jira? > (5) identify apache sponsoring individual > > Justin Erenkrantz (justin @ erenkrantz dot-com) That says a lot! (in a good way ;-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Big +1 (non-binding) -Brian On May 13, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Heidi Buelow wrote: Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library Submission date: 12 May 2005, Tim Triemstra, Heidi Buelow (TimT @ RogueWave dot-com, Buelow @ RogueWave dot-com) (0) rationale The goal of the Apache C++ Standard Library project is to provide a free implementation of the ISO/EIC 14882 international standard, often called the "STL" or "stdlib", which is consistent and portable across all major platforms and compilers. For the sake of this proposal, the project will be called "STDCXX" to blend in with other Apache names. Currently, C++ developers spend considerable effort porting code among platforms, as compiler vendors are focused on backward compatibility rather than cross-platform portability. There are other free implementations, but none have the quality, license flexibility, or platform support necessary to serve as a universal foundation for the C++ language. Rogue Wave Software will jump start this project by contributing the commercial C++ Standard Library it has been shipping for over a decade. This is a new, enhanced version of the OEM library provided by many vendors, including ARM, Sun Microsystems, HP and others. Unique attributes include: Complete compliance with the C++ standard Complete implementation of locale library (not OS dependant) User control over strict or loose standards compliance Largest test suite of any major implementation High performance Reference counted basic_string using atomic locking Thread-safety, including iostream and locale objects Fast compiles and extremely small executable file sizes Proven, portable, and fully tested on each platform Many platforms (Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.) Platform-specific compilers (eg: MSVC, Sun Forte, HP aCC, GCC) Fully configurable and documented build control Ten years of deployment in the world's most critical systems Highly respected documentation, well maintained and up to date The day the project is launched, it will already provide the strongest foundation library for the C++ language available, both in terms of platform and standards support. (0.1) criteria Meritocracy: The STDCXX project should adhere to the same open, merit-based community standards as other Apache projects, while also closely tracking the relevant C++ standards. Contributions and Core Developers: The initial code contribution will be a fully-functional implementation of the ISO/EIC 14882 international standard, including the Standard Template Library (STL), locales, and iostreams libraries. As each platform's build system is packaged, additional ports will be contributed. As a side note, Rogue Wave Software intends to continue distributing the library as part of its SourcePro/C++ product well into the future. This means that significant effort will continue, especially in porting, and that effort will directly benefit the open source community since even code developed to meet commercial requirements will be contributed back into the community. Community: We estimate there are over 300,000 developers using the original commercial code, and several have already expressed interest in becoming contributors. This established, loose-knit group of users exposed to the existing code base via OEM or as direct customers should ensure a vibrant community once the open source project is started. It is likely that the Apache C++ Standard Library would be a desirable project to be used by other Apache projects as a foundation to ensure excellent performance and easy portability across platforms. It can serve many of the same goals as the existing APR project, but directly address the needs of C++ developers. Those other projects will be encouraged to actively participate in the library's community as well. Apache Alignment: With the success of open/free software, C/C++ has seen a bit of a revival as a popular language for its portability, power, and performance. In fact, Apache has a considerable number of key projects based on these languages. These projects and the entire developer community at large would benefit from a C++ standard implementation from a trusted source such as Apache. Without such a respected organization behind the project, developers will have to constantly choose a less-portable solution, or a solution more risky due to a small user community. (0.2) known risks Orphaned Products: One of the first questions when a commercial entity offers code to the public is "will this code be abandoned?" To be clear, Rogue Wave decided to initiate this process due to its own desire to stabilize the C++ market, making the creation of higher-level products easier and more portable. For a long time the contributed code has served primarily as a foundation for other commercial products, not as revenue producer on its own. Regardless of Apache's interested in the project, Rogue Wave
