[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-4678?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16725846#comment-16725846 ]
James E. King III commented on THRIFT-4678: ------------------------------------------- I was talking privately with someone else in the Thrift PMC ([~codesf]) and mentioned that I would be okay if thrift 0.12.0 was the last release of thrift that worked with C++03; and that the next release could have the option to use boost for specific things, or just use std; alternatively we could just drop boost all together and rely on std, but that essentially eliminates the possibility of rewriting the C++ transport core with boost::asio. Distributions that build and distribute a thrift library would have to decide if they want to drop the boost dependency or not, knowing it would be considered a breaking change for people who consume thrift. Unfortunately having an "option" to use boost or not creates a build-time branch where you need a boost and non-boost library. It may be easier to just say there's no boost and no direct pthreads support in the thrift C++ any more, and go straight to just using std::thread, and other std::things (unique_ptr, etc). To answer your question: NO, there is no clear roadmap. I will open a discussion on the user@ mailing list about it and gather replies from folks who take the time to respond, and then can put it up for a vote on the dev@ mailing list. > add noexcept cpp generator option > --------------------------------- > > Key: THRIFT-4678 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-4678 > Project: Thrift > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: C++ - Compiler, C++ - Library > Affects Versions: 0.11.0 > Reporter: yuanyuan chen > Priority: Minor > > The C++11 standard has deprecated the usage of throw() to express > exceptions,so to avoid warnings from the compiler,I think this option is > useful. > I have a pull request in github,this issue is created to track it. > Some questions remain: > 1.Should we change the runtime c++ library to use BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW? > 2.Should we add an control option to enable all c++11 options like > moveable_types .etc? > 3.Should we begin to support C+17 features? I think std::optional should be > used to implement optional keyword,but this is clearly an API breaking > change,so we need an c+17 control option. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)