I would be happy to port tests from boost-test to googletest -- and in the process, we could arrange for running tests in parallel, e.g. the cross-test. I've found that googetest is much more ..... helpful for debugging. I'd also vote for (in the C++ code) putting in glog support, for similar reasons.
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ben Craig <ben.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > The main source of work on the Thrift side will be porting the tests. Many > of them are based on boost test right now. > > I'm generally fine with the idea, just be aware that this is a breaking > change, though the break will often be easily dealt with by users > (replacing std with boost). > > If you want to be super nice to our users, you could provide a #define to > switch between boost:: and std::. > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:14 PM, James E. King, III <jk...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > A pull request was submitted recently that is a work in progress to move > > away from Boost. This is something the team has expressed a desire for > in > > the past (although as a maintainer of two boost libraries it makes me > sad!) > > as will will reduce project dependencies. > > > > https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/1448 > > > > This work would be GREATLY simplified if we came to a decision to name > > 0.11.0 as the last version that will support C++03, and the next release > > will require C++11 and would not use boost in generated or library code. > > I'm not sure I would be okay with such a decision, but I'm floating the > > idea out there for general comment from anyone and everyone. > > > > This would probably force people up to gcc-4.8 or gcc-4.9 at a minimum on > > Unix, not sure which version of clang (maybe 3.4?), and I believe we > might > > need to require Visual Studio 2013 or later, depending on how much C++11 > we > > use it could go up to 2015. > > > > Libraries in Boost could be quite useful in the future, for example > > boost::asio and boost::beast. If we disconnect from boost completely > then > > we would not have access to these. I suppose we could make them optional > > servers or transports that would need to be enabled at build time, and if > > enabled at build time would require boost, so perhaps I'm just being > > paranoid there. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jim > > >
