Sergey Cheban-2 wrote
I think that it is a good idea to support these standards in the Boost. Unfortunately, I think that FIX is far too domain-specific. As a boost user, I'm not against mentioning boost-licensed domain-specific libraries somewhere at the Boost web site but I don't think that these libraries should be included into the default boost distribution. The reasons are:
1. The library size does matter.
The above is predicated that Distribution of Boost Libraries will continue indefinately to be distributed as a complete package. Our recent efforts including modularization, reduction of dependencies, etc. will eventually result in a deployment model in which acceptance into boost and deployment will be decoupled. Users will install subsets of boost that they actually use. This might result in distributions with names like: Boost.Core - iterators, ranges, etc... Boost.Legacy - stuff which is obsolete for modern compilers but is still needed by some people - BOOST_FOREACH, BOOST_TYPEOF, etc. Boost.Math - Boost.Security Boost.Finance etc. So I think that trying too keep boost small - though attractive - doesn't look forward to the future. I think the main challenge to Boost and C++ in the future is to find a way to produce better quality libraries.
2. The boost community has to support everything that is included into the boost library. What if a maintainer of some library abandons it? For a general-purpose library, there are chances that someone will take responsibility for it. For a domain-specific library, such chances seem to be negligible.
True - and we need to find a way to address that. But that's no reason for keeping the library small or letting it grow - it's a different question. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Interest-in-a-FIX-Protocol-Library-tp4670... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.