Stefan Teleman wrote:
> Or, how is this same proposal consistent with the Principle Of Least
> Astonishment ?
1) What happens TODAY when I have
A) A middleware C++ module that uses the STLPort4 Standard C++ Library
B) A different middleware module that uses the Apache Standard C++ Library
and
C) A program that needs to use both middleware libraries?
(I would expect pain and suffering and a failed build, but I could be wrong.)
2) Is the answer different if you postulate having the sources for A and B -vs-
only having shared object libraries?
3) Are the various Standard C++ Libraries compatible at all at the source level?
and finally,
4) What is the big picture with respect to all these choices?
What I'm hoping to hear for this last one is something like
STLPort4 is old and obsolete, but kept around for customers who have
source and/or binary compatibility requirements with the [xxx]
Standard.
STLPort5 is a newer-but-source-and-binary incompatible replacement
for STLPort4 that is compliant with [xxx] Standard.
The Apache Standard C++ Library has the following relationships
to the above [...].
New C++ code should be written to use [...pick one or more...]
because [... rationalizations...].
New C++ middleware libraries should/must use [... pick one...] in
order to ensure that applications can actually be built that use
multiple C++ modules.
-John
