[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-4678?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16725846#comment-16725846
]
James E. King III commented on THRIFT-4678:
-------------------------------------------
I was talking privately with someone else in the Thrift PMC ([~codesf]) and
mentioned that I would be okay if thrift 0.12.0 was the last release of thrift
that worked with C++03; and that the next release could have the option to use
boost for specific things, or just use std; alternatively we could just drop
boost all together and rely on std, but that essentially eliminates the
possibility of rewriting the C++ transport core with boost::asio.
Distributions that build and distribute a thrift library would have to decide
if they want to drop the boost dependency or not, knowing it would be
considered a breaking change for people who consume thrift. Unfortunately
having an "option" to use boost or not creates a build-time branch where you
need a boost and non-boost library. It may be easier to just say there's no
boost and no direct pthreads support in the thrift C++ any more, and go
straight to just using std::thread, and other std::things (unique_ptr, etc).
To answer your question: NO, there is no clear roadmap. I will open a
discussion on the user@ mailing list about it and gather replies from folks who
take the time to respond, and then can put it up for a vote on the dev@ mailing
list.
> add noexcept cpp generator option
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-4678
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-4678
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++ - Compiler, C++ - Library
> Affects Versions: 0.11.0
> Reporter: yuanyuan chen
> Priority: Minor
>
> The C++11 standard has deprecated the usage of throw() to express
> exceptions,so to avoid warnings from the compiler,I think this option is
> useful.
> I have a pull request in github,this issue is created to track it.
> Some questions remain:
> 1.Should we change the runtime c++ library to use BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW?
> 2.Should we add an control option to enable all c++11 options like
> moveable_types .etc?
> 3.Should we begin to support C+17 features? I think std::optional should be
> used to implement optional keyword,but this is clearly an API breaking
> change,so we need an c+17 control option.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
