Well, we should fix the forced linkage, it's not the intent. I assume that's what you mean by "leaks it's abstractions".. yes?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Tim St Clair <[email protected]> wrote: > > FWIW - Stout isn't a self contained header only library, and it leaks it's > abstractions. > Currently it will force linkage anyway... > > stout_tests_LDADD = \ > libgmock.la \ > $(LIBGLOG) \ > $(LIBPROTOBUF) \ > -ldl \ > -lsvn_subr-1 \ > -lsvn_delta-1 \ > -lapr-1 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Benjamin Mahler" <[email protected]> > > To: "dev" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:58:24 PM > > Subject: Re: Using boost filesystem > > > > These have been around 3rd party libraries, e.g. glog, svn, protobuf, > etc. > > Here the choice to use these external libraries is made in the code that > > uses stout. If they don't use protobuf, they don't include stout's > protobuf > > header, and they don't link it in. There should be no surprise to the > > library user here. > > > > path.hpp seems a lot more general, no? A lot of users of stout will want > to > > do filesystem operations. Requiring them to link in boost once they > include > > the header seems surprising given the header-only design of stout. > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Cody Maloney <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > It's not header only. > > > > > > I think we actually need a general discussion around upgrading all the > > > libraries mesos depends upon (Using a plain up-stream boost, etc). > > > > > > Note that some portions of stout already require callers to link > against > > > specific libraries for them to actually work, so I don't think the > > > header-only is that big of a requirement. But definitely we should > have a > > > discussion around it. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Is it header only? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Alexander Rojas < > > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > > > > > I was checking one of my reviews which call for using some > > > unimplemented > > > > > functionality in stout path. Since that class has no methods, > > > attributes > > > > or > > > > > anything apart from a string value attribute; I was left wondering, > > > > wether > > > > > it makes sense to use boost filesystem. > > > > > > > > > > Boost filesystem v3 has all the functionality we may need from a > path > > > > > class, it is the basis fro a technical recommendation ( > > > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4100.pdf > < > > > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4100.pdf > >) > > > and > > > > > might become part of the standard in the future. Why not adopt it > in > > > > mesos? > > > > > > > > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Timothy St. Clair > Red Hat Inc. >
