I do agree having this discussion. While I wouldn’t be for using every single boost library (spirit comes to mind as one we should avoid), using libraries like filesystem, thread or smart printers would reduce the amount of code we should maintain, while being certain we are using high quality libraries which are widely tested and maintained.
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:36, Cody Maloney <c...@mesosphere.io> wrote: > > It's not header only. > > I think we actually need a general discussion around upgrading all the > libraries mesos depends upon (Using a plain up-stream boost, etc). > > Note that some portions of stout already require callers to link against > specific libraries for them to actually work, so I don't think the > header-only is that big of a requirement. But definitely we should have a > discussion around it. > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Vinod Kone <vinodk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is it header only? >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Alexander Rojas <alexan...@mesosphere.io> >> wrote: >> >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> I was checking one of my reviews which call for using some unimplemented >>> functionality in stout path. Since that class has no methods, attributes >> or >>> anything apart from a string value attribute; I was left wondering, >> wether >>> it makes sense to use boost filesystem. >>> >>> Boost filesystem v3 has all the functionality we may need from a path >>> class, it is the basis fro a technical recommendation ( >>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4100.pdf < >>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4100.pdf>) and >>> might become part of the standard in the future. Why not adopt it in >> mesos? >>> >>> Alexander >>
