Hello Gerrit,
Gerrit Voß wrote:
> does anybody has a problem if we retire the OSG::Path / OSG::Dir stuff
> and switch to boost::filesystem instead ??.
no, I've been thinking about this too, while trying to figure out some
problem I had with the PathHandler.
> The only drawback I see is that we always have to link against a
> boost library.
true, it would be the first non-header only boost lib, but filesystem
has been one of the rather stable ones (i.e. few/no API changes), with
the exception that from 1.34 to 1.35 boost::system became a dependency.
One of the unit tests also already uses it, so I think the necessary
pieces to handle that are in the build system.
I've read on the boost mailing list that version 3 (including
incompatible changes [1]) of boost::filesystem is in beta right now
(current is version 2 apparently) and will replace the current code in a
future release of boost. There is supposedly some transition phase, but
the plan seems to be to remove the current code rather quickly afterwards.
Cheers,
Carsten
[1] http://mysite.verizon.net/beman/v3/v3.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensg-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
