On 20 Apr 2014 at 19:25, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
Sure, I got that, but from the 90 seconds I looked at your docs it wasn't clear to me why you appeared to be replacing instead of extending Boost.Process. Of course you may not be replacing, but that wasnt't obvious in 90 seconds of looking.
Just to be clear Niall, the part that you think is common to Process is basically the server/daemon setup feature, am I right?
Eh, maybe. I was more thinking there might be some process control in there somewhere, and that might overlap with Boost.Process. I really didn't look for more than 90 seconds.
What I mean is: wouldn't it be possible to review the Boost.Application interface and current implementation but assume that the parts that should be part of Boost.Process/Extension will use these libraries once ready?
If a review manager can be found, anything can be reviewed. It doesn't mean the review will work though. I think the worst outcome in a community review though is when almost nobody contributes a review because it's too hard and/or no one cares enough, with the second worst outcome being when each reviewer has a totally different understanding to any other as to what they are reviewing, which makes the job of a review manager almost impossible. In that sense, small, single purpose libraries have a lot going for them under how Boost currently has configured peer review. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/