Re: [Boost-users] Forthcoming Boost.Fiber review

Well, the reason why I asked about that, was because my use-case is an Openflow Controller which needs to support a massive number of open sockets. This use case needs to be stable enough for demonstration and prototype purposes. You are right! I should have asked instead "Will the API change" which is probably a much better question for this use-case. Unfortunately I don't have much time to spend in reviews nor I can give myself to the luxury of waiting for new code submissions, in order to solve a certain problem. For now, I will stick to the normal Boost.Coroutines (despite I also have a few problems with that. Please watch my next post for further detail). If I really need the capabilities that the Fiber framework is providing, then I will surely contribute. Thanks for your (and the other developers) work. On 19 December 2013 02:01, Nat Goodspeed wrote:

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Carlos Ferreira wrote:

Nat, one question.

...

How stable is the lib?

Boost.Fiber seems to be exactly what I need, but I would prefer to use a stable version. Can you give me information regarding that aspect? Thanks! :)

It's exactly what I need too. Undergoing the Boost review process and becoming officially part of the Boost libraries makes it that much more stable.

Oliver has extensive self-testing. I know that he has run his tests and examples on Windows, Mac and Linux, 32-bit and 64-bit, with a few different gcc versions. I have successfully dropped it into (a fork of) a large production program, replacing an older, less official library with similar functionality. On that basis, I'm comfortable that it's ready for a broader review.

But it's really the review itself that allows us to call a library "stable." You might mean: is the API still changing? or: how buggy is it, on my platform, for my use case? The Boost review process invites many people, on many platforms, with many use cases, to consider the API and hopefully to test the library for themselves. The intention is to flush out desired/required API changes, as well as obscure bugs. It is often the case that a library author is requested to refine the API and then to resubmit for a shorter review cycle.

Once the Boost community reaches consensus, then we can use the word "stable" with more confidence.

Since you say you have a use case, if you would be so good as to try the library yourself and submit a review, you will help it to reach "stable" status.

_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

-- Carlos Miguel Ferreira Researcher at Telecommunications Institute Aveiro - Portugal Work E-mail - cmf@av.it.pt Skype & GTalk -> carlosmf.pt@gmail.com LinkedIn -> http://www.linkedin.com/in/carlosmferreira