I am for moving to C++11. In addition to replacing auto_ptr with unique_ptr, we can get a few more things moved. E.g. boost::any to std::any, which has small buffer optimization. We can also replace ref counted boost pointers with those in std::. However, there is one hitch. The C++ API directly exposes auto_ptr (and possibly boost::any) instead of typedef'ing them in avro namespace. So almost all C++ users of Avro 1.8.x and before will have to modify their sources in order to compile with 1.9.0. This problem is not going to go away, so we should swallow it some time. Let it be 1.9.0. It will be worthwhile to publish a migration guide. Thank you, Thiru On Tuesday, 4 December, 2018, 1:55:37 AM IST, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: I’m trying to look at PR’s and have run into:
https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/203 <https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/203> vs https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/157 <https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/157> At this point, I’m leaning more toward 157 and updating 1.9 to require C++11. It’s technically an incompatible change, but it’s required to be able to compile with C++17. 203 uses the boost libraries to still allow C++03, but it’s still incompatible. Thus, if we’re moving forward with 1.9, I’d rather go with the cleaner C++11 level. Thoughts? -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org <mailto:dk...@apache.org> - http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog> Talend Community Coder - http://talend.com <http://coders.talend.com/>
