More Boost in DC++

[MikeJJ]

Before I start, I'm not trying to say "this is how it should be done" i would just like to start a discussion to help me learn more

Looking through launchpad last week I stumbled across this branch of linuxdcpp https://code.launchpad.net/~gpr/linuxdcpp/boost where it seems to be moving more stuff which can be done in boost, into boost.
A good example of this can be seen in this commit http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~gpr/linuxd ... vision/383

To me the resulting code looks a lot simpler to maintain, being a lot less of it! And since it's using boost should be pretty safe / good quality.
Do people think code changes like this should also be done in DC++ ? Are there any negative consequences of this ?

thanks
MikeJJ

[cologic]

To me the resulting code looks a lot simpler to maintain, being a lot less of it! And since it's using boost should be pretty safe / good quality.
Do people think code changes like this should also be done in DC++ ? Are there any negative consequences of this ?

thanks
MikeJJ

I agree with your premise/suggestion, broadly. At least two main issues:

(1) If a feature gets supported by both MSVC and g++ 4.5+'s C++0x implementations, using the C++0x version is nicer. I'm not sure how much of the Boost conversion that includes. (Follow link for g++ compatibility; I'm not sure if there's a good list for MSVC)

(2) Intrinsically platform-dependent features such as mutexes necessarily require build system changes. It's not enough to just pull in more of an include-only template metaprogramming library when the actual system calls must change too. That's a negative consequence, though not usually a very serious one.

[Big Muscle]

A good example of this can be seen in this commit http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~gpr/linuxd ... vision/383

Concretely this stuff has already been in DC++ for a longer time - since I posted my "patch" in August here - https://bugs.launchpad.net/dcplusplus/+bug/617757