On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Roger Meier <ro...@bufferoverflow.ch> wrote:
> +1 for C++11 on master and for upcoming releases > > > Quoting Chet Murthy <murthy.c...@gmail.com>: > > 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. >> > Not certain I see a benefit there. Replacing one third party library for another... >> 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. >>> >>> Do we have to abandon boost entirely, or just the runtime? > 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). >>> >>> It's actually this work that is complicating things in some places, especially where detection of a C++11 compiler is in question. If we continue to support C++03 then we should make a proper detector of C++11 (like Boost.Config has). > If you want to be super nice to our users, you could provide a #define to >>> switch between boost:: and std::. >>> >>> We currently do that with the stdcxx namespace. > 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 >>> > >>> >>> > >
