<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="stylesheet.xsl"?>

<doc>
    <title>How to Contribute</title>



    <!-- ************************************************************************* -->

    <body>
        <br/><br/>
        

        <!--   ****************************   EASY CONTRIBUTIONS  ****************************    -->

         There are some simple ways to contribute to dlib:

         <ul>
            <li> You could make a dlib logo </li>
            <li> Find confusing or incorrect documentation </li>
            <li> Help make the web page prettier </li>
            <li> Link to dlib from your web page </li>
            <li> Add yourself or your project to the list of 
            <a href="http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/dclib/index.php?title=Known_users">dlib users</a> </li>
            <li> Try to run the dlib regression test suite on any platforms you
            have access to </li>
         </ul>

        <!--   ****************************   CODE CONTRIBUTIONS  ****************************    -->

         Code contributions are also welcome, however, you should read over the coding guidelines below
         and try to follow them.  It is also probably a good idea to read the books Effective C++ and 
         More Effective C++ by Scott Myers.   And as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

        
         <h2>Coding Guidelines</h2>

         1. <a href="#1">Use Design by Contract</a><br/>
         2. <a href="#2">Use spaces instead of tabs.</a><br/>
         3. <a href="#3">Use the standard C++ naming convention</a><br/>
         4. <a href="#4">Use RAII</a><br/>
         5. <a href="#5">Don't use pointers</a><br/>
         6. <a href="#6">Don't use #define for constants.</a><br/>
         7. <a href="#7">Don't use stack based arrays.</a><br/>
         8. <a href="#8">Use exceptions, but don't abuse them</a><br/>
         9. <a href="#9">Write portable code</a><br/>
         10. <a href="#10">Setup regression tests</a><br/>
         11. <a href="#11">Use the Boost Software License</a><br/>


         <ul>
        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>1</anchor>
            <li> <h3> Apply Design by Contract to Your Code  </h3>
               <ul><p>
                  The most important part of a software library isn't the code, it is the set
                  of interfaces the library exposes to the user.  These interfaces need to be easy 
                  to use right, and hard to use wrong.  The only way this
                  happens is if the interfaces are documented in a simple, consistent, and precise way.
               </p>
               <p>
                  The name for the way I design and document these interfaces is known as
                  Design by Contract.   There is a lot that can be said about Design by Contract, in fact,
                  whole books have been written about it, and programming languages exist which
                  use Design by Contract as a central element.  Here I will just go over some
                  of the basic ways it is used in dlib as well as some of the reasons why it is a 
                  Good Thing.
               </p>
               <li> <b>Functions should have documented preconditions which are programmatically verifiable</b>
                  <ul>
                     <p>
                     Many functions have a set of requirements or preconditions that need to be satisfied
                     if they are to be used.  If these requirements are not satisfied 
                     when a function is called then the function will not do what it is supposed to do.  Moreover,
                     any piece of software that calls a function but doesn't make sure all preconditions
                     are satisfied contains a bug, <i>by definition</i>.  
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        This means all functions must precisely document their preconditions if they are to be
                        usable.  In fact, all preconditions should be programmatically verifiable.  Doing this
                        has a number of benefits.  First, it means they are unambiguous.  English
                        can be confusing and vague, but saying "<tt>some_predicate == true</tt>" uses a 
                        formal language, C++, that we all should understand quite well.  Second, it means 
                        you can put checks into the code that will catch <i>all</i> usage errors. 
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        These checks should always be implemented using 
                        <a href="metaprogramming.html#DLIB_ASSERT">DLIB_ASSERT</a> or
                        <a href="metaprogramming.html#DLIB_CASSERT">DLIB_CASSERT</a> and they should always
                        cover all preconditions.   
                        These macros take a boolean argument and if it is false they throw dlib::fatal_error.  So
                        you can use them to check that all your preconditions are true.  Also, don't forget that
                        a violated function precondition indicates a bug in a program.  
                        That is, when dlib::fatal_error is thrown it means a bug has been found and the only thing 
                        an application can do at that point is print an error message and terminate.  
                        In fact, dlib::fatal_error has checks in it to make sure someone doesn't catch the
                        exception and ignore it.  These checks will abruptly terminate any program that attempts
                        to ignore fatal errors.   
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        The above considerations bring me to my next bit of advice.  Developers new to Design by Contract
                        often confuse input validation requirements with function preconditions.   When I tell them 
                        to consider any violation of a function's preconditions a bug and terminate their application 
                        with an error message they complain that this is not at all what an application should do when 
                        it receives invalid user inputs.

                        They are right, that would be a bad thing
                        and you should not write software that behaves that way.  The way out of this problem is, of
                        course, to not consider invalid input as a bug.  Instead, you should perform explicit input validation 
                        on any
                        data coming into your program <i>before</i> it gets to any functions that have preconditions
                        which demand the validated inputs.  Moreover, if you make your preconditions programmatically verifiable
                        then it should be easy to validate any inputs by simply using whatever it is you
                        use to check your preconditions.  
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        Consider the function <a href="dlib/svm/svm_abstract.h.html#cross_validate_trainer">cross_validate_trainer</a> as an 
                        example.  One of its requirements is that the input forms a valid binary classification problem.
                        This is documented in the list of preconditions as 
                        "<tt>is_binary_classification_problem(x,y) == true</tt>".  This precondition is just saying 
                        that when you call
                        the <a href="dlib/svm/svm_abstract.h.html#is_binary_classification_problem">is_binary_classification_problem</a> 
                        function on the x and y inputs it had better return true 
                        if you want to use those inputs with the <tt>cross_validate_trainer</tt> function.   
                        Given this information it is trivial to perform input validation.  All you have to do is
                        call <tt>is_binary_classification_problem</tt> on your input data and you are done.   
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        Using the above technique you have validated your inputs, documented your preconditions, and are
                        buffered by DLIB_ASSERT statements that will catch you if you accidentally forget to validate any
                        inputs.   
                     </p>
                     <p>The thing to understand here is that
                        a violation of a function's preconditions means you have a bug on your hands.  Or in other words,
                        you should never intentionally violate any function preconditions.  But of course 
                        it will happen from time to time because bugs are unavoidable.  But at least with 
                        this approach you will get a detailed error message early in development rather than a 
                        mysterious segmentation fault days or weeks later.
                     </p>
                  </ul></li>
               <li> <b>Functions should have documented postconditions  </b>
                  <ul><p>
                     I don't have nearly as much to say about postconditions as I did about function requirements.  You should
                     strive to write programmatically verifiable postconditions because that makes your postconditions
                     more precise.  However, it is sometimes the case that this isn't practical and that is fine.  
                     But whatever you do write needs to clearly communicate to the
                     user what it is your function does.  
                  </p></ul></li>
               <p>
                  Now you may be wondering why this is called <i>Design</i> by Contract and not Documentation
                  by Contract.  The reason is that the process of writing down all these detailed descriptions
                  of what your code does becomes part of how you design software.  For example, often you 
                  will find that when you go to write down the requirements for calling a function you are unable 
                  to do so.  This may be because the requirements are so complex you can't think of a way 
                  to describe them, or you may realize that you don't even know what they are.  Alternatively, 
                  you may know what they are but discover there isn't any way to verify them programmatically.   All these
                  things are symptoms of a bad <i>design</i> and the reason you became aware of this design problem 
                  was by attempting to apply Design by Contract.  
               </p>
               <p>
                  After you get enough practice with this way of writing software you begin to think a lot
                  more about questions like "how can I design this class such that every member function
                  has a very simple set of requirements and postconditions?"  Once you start doing this
                  you are well on your way to creating software components that are easy to use right, and 
                  hard to use wrong.
               </p>
               <p>
                  The notation dlib uses to document preconditions and postconditions is described in
                  the <a href="intro.html#Notation">introduction</a>.  All code that goes into dlib
                  must document itself using this notation.  You should also separate the implementation
                  and specification of a component into two separate files as described in the introduction.  This
                  way users aren't confused or distracted by implementation details when they look at the documentation.  
               </p>
               </ul>
            </li>


        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>2</anchor>
            <li><h3>Use spaces instead of tabs.   </h3>
            <ul> <p>This is just generally good advice but
                  it is especially important in dlib since everything is viewable 
                  as pretty-printed HTML.  Tabs show up as 8 characters in most browsers
                  and this results in the HTML version being difficult to read.  So 
                  don't use tabs.  Additionally, please use 4 spaces for each tab level.</p>
            </ul></li>
           


        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>3</anchor>
           <li><h3> Don't use capitol letters in the names of variables, functions, or
              classes.  Use the _ character to separate words.  </h3>
            <ul>
               <p>
                  The reason dlib uses this style is because it is the style used by the
                  C++ standard library.  But more importantly, dlib currently provides
                  an interface to users that has a consistent look and feel and it is
                  important to continue to do so.   
               </p>
                  <p>
                     As for constants, they should usually contain all upper case letters 
                     but all lowercase is ok sometimes.
                  </p>
            </ul></li>

        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>4</anchor>
            <li> <h3> Don't use manual resource management.  Use RAII
               instead.</h3>
               <ul><p>
                  You should not be calling new and delete in your own code.  You should instead
                  be using objects like the std::vector, <a href="containers.html#scoped_ptr">scoped_ptr</a>,
                  or any number of other objects that manage resources such as memory for you.  If you want
                  an array use std::vector (or the checked <a href="containers.html#std_vector_c">std_vector_c</a>).
                  If you want to make a lookup table use a <a href="containers.html#map">map</a>.  If you want
                  a two dimensional array use <a href="containers.html#matrix">matrix</a> or 
                  <a href="containers.html#array2d">array2d</a>.
               </p>
               <p>
                  These container objects are examples of what is called RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization)
                  in C++.  It is essentially a name for the fact that, in C++, you can have totally automated and
                  deterministic resource management by always associating resource acquisition with the construction
                  of an object and resource release with the destruction of an object.  I say resource management 
                  here rather than memory management
                  because, unlike Java, RAII can be used for more than memory management.  For example, when
                  you use a <a href="dlib/threads/threads_kernel_abstract.h.html#mutex">mutex</a> you first lock
                  it, do something, and then you need to remember to unlock it.  The RAII way of doing this is
                  to use the <a href="api.html#auto_mutex">auto_mutex</a> which will lock a mutex and automatically
                  unlock it for you.   Or suppose you have made a TCP <a href="api.html#sockets">connection</a> 
                  to another machine and you want to be certain the resources associated with that connection 
                  are always released.  You can easily accomplish this with RAII by using the scoped_ptr as
                  shown in <a href="sockets_ex_2.cpp.html">this</a> example program.
               </p>
               <p>
                  RAII is a trivial technique to use.  All you have to do is not call new and delete yourself and
                  you will never have another memory leak.  Just use the appropriate <a href="containers.html">container</a>
                  instead.  Finally, if you don't use RAII then your code is almost certainly not exception safe.   
               </p>
               </ul>
            </li>

        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>5</anchor>
            <li> <h3>Don't use pointers </h3>
               <ul><p>
                  There are a number of reasons to not use pointers.  First, if you are using pointers then
                  you are probably not using RAII.  Second, pointers are ambiguous.  When I see a pointer
                  I don't know if it is a pointer to a single item, a pointer to nothing, or 
                  a pointer to an array of who knows how many things.   On the other hand, when I see a 
                  std::vector I know with certainty that I'm dealing with a kind of array.  Or if I see a 
                  reference to something then I know I'm dealing with exactly one instance of some object.  
               </p>
               <p>
                  Most importantly, it is impossible to validate the state of a pointer.  Consider two
                  functions:  
                  <blockquote><tt>double compute_sum_of_array_elements(const double* array, int array_size);  <br/>
                     double compute_sum_of_array_elements(const std::vector&lt;double&gt;&amp; array); </tt></blockquote>

                  The first function is inherently unsafe.  If the user accidentally passes in an invalid pointer
                  or sets the size argument incorrectly then their program may crash and this will turn into a 
                  potentially hard to find bug.  This is because there is absolutely nothing you can do inside
                  the first function to tell the difference between a valid pointer and size pair and an invalid
                  pointer and size pair.  <b><i>Nothing</i></b>.   The second function has none of these difficulties.
               </p>
               <p>
                  If you absolutely need pointer semantics then you can usually use a smart pointer like
                  <a href="containers.html#scoped_ptr">scoped_ptr</a> or <a href="containers.html#shared_ptr">shared_ptr</a>.
                  If that still isn't good enough for you and you <i>really</i> need to use a normal C style pointer
                  then isolate your pointers inside a class so that they are contained in a small area of the code.  
                  However, in practice the container classes in dlib and the STL are more than sufficient in nearly 
                  every case where pointers would otherwise be used.
               </p>
               </ul>
            </li>

        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>6</anchor>
            <li> <h3> Don't use #define for constants.   </h3>
               <ul><p>
                  dlib is meant to be integrated into other people's projects.  Because of this everything
                  in dlib is contained inside the dlib namespace to avoid naming conflicts with user's code.
                  #defines don't respect namespaces at all.  For example, if you #define a constant called SIZE then it
                  will cause a conflict with any piece of code <i>anywhere</i> that contains the identifier SIZE.  
                  This means that #define based constants must be avoided and constants should be created using the
                  const keyword instead.
               </p>
               </ul>
            </li>

        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>7</anchor>
            <li> <h3>Don't use stack based arrays.   </h3>
               <ul><p>
                  A stack based array, or C style array, is an array declared like this:
                  <blockquote><tt>int array[200];</tt></blockquote>
                  Most of my criticisms of pointers also apply to stack based arrays.  In particular, 
                  if you are passing a stack based array to a function then that means you are probably
                  using functions similar to the unsafe compute_sum_of_array_elements() example above.
               </p>
               <p>
                  The only time it is OK to use this kind of array is when you use it for simple
                  tasks and you don't start passing pointers to the array to other parts of your code.  You
                  should also use a constant to store the array size and use that constant in your loops
                  rather than hard coding the size in numerous places.   
               </p>
               <p>
                  But even still, you should use a container class instead and preferably one with the ability to do range
                  checking such as the  <a href="containers.html#std_vector_c">std_vector_c</a>.   </p>
                  <p>
                     Consider the following two bits of code:
<pre>
   for (int i = 0; i &lt; array_size; ++i) 
      my_c_array[i] = 4;

   for (int i = 0; i &lt; my_std_vector.size(); ++i)
      my_std_vector[i] = 4;

</pre>
                  The second loop clearly doesn't overflow the bounds of the my_std_vector.   On the other 
                  hand, just by looking at the code in the first loop, we can not tell if it overflows
                  my_c_array.  We have to assume that array_size is the appropriate constant but we could be wrong.
               </p>
               <p>
                  Buffer overflows are probably the most common kind of bug in C and C++ code.  These bugs also
                  lead to serious exploitable security holes in software.  So please try to avoid stack based arrays.
               </p>
               </ul>
            </li>



        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>8</anchor>
            <li> <h3> Use exceptions, but don't abuse them. </h3>
               <ul>
                  <p>
                   Exceptions are one of the great features of modern programming languages.  Some 
                   people, however, consider that to be a contentious statement.   But if you accept 
                   the notion that a software library should be hard to use wrong then it 
                   becomes difficult to reject exceptions.  
                  </p>
                  <p>
                   Most of the complaints I hear about exceptions are actually complaints 
                   about their <i>misuse</i> rather than objections to the basic idea.  
                   So before I begin to defend the above
                   paragraph I would like to lay out more clearly when it is appropriate to
                   use exceptions and when it is not.   
                  </p>
                  <p>
                  There are two basic questions you should ask yourself when deciding whether to 
                  throw an exception in response to some event.  The first is (1) "should this event
                  occur in the normal use of my library component?"  The second question is (2) "if this event
                  were to occur, is it likely that the user will want to place the code for dealing 
                  with the event near the invocations of my library component?"
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     If your answers to the above two questions are "no" then you should probably
                     throw an exception in response to the event.  On the other hand, if you answer
                     "yes" to either of these questions then you should probably <i>not</i> throw an exception.
                  </p>

               <p>
                  A good example of an event worth throwing exceptions for is running out of memory.  
                  (1) It doesn't happen very often, and (2) when it does happen it is hardly ever the case that 
                  you want to deal with the out of memory event right next to the place where you are 
                  attempting to allocate memory.  
               </p>
               <p>
                  Alternatively, an example of an event that shouldn't throw an exception comes to 
                  us from the C++ I/O streams.  This part of the standard library allows
                  you to read the contents of a file from disk.  When you hit the end of file they
                  do not throw an exception.  This is appropriate because (1) you usually want to
                  read a file in its entirety. So hitting EOF happens all the time.  Additionally, (2)
                  when you hit EOF you usually want to break out of the loop you are in
                  and continue immediately into the next block of code.
               </p>
               <p>
                  Usually when someone tells me they don't like exceptions they give reasons like "they make 
                  me put try/catch blocks all over the place and it makes the code hard to read."  Or "it makes
                  it hard to understand the flow of a program with exceptions in it."   Invariably they
                  have been working with bodies of software that disregard the above rules regarding questions
                  1 and 2.  Indeed, when exceptions are used for flow control the results are horrifying.  Using
                  exceptions for events that occur in the normal use of a software component, especially when
                  the events need to be dealt with near where they happen result in a spaghetti-like mess
                  of throw statements and try/catch blocks.  Clearly, exceptions should be used judiciously.  
                  So please, take my advice regarding questions 1 and 2 to heart. 
               </p>
               <p>
                  Now let's go back to my claim that exceptions are an important part of making
                  a library that is hard to use wrong.  But first let's be honest about one thing,  
                  many developers don't think very hard about error handling and they similarly aren't very
                  careful about checking function return codes.  Moreover, even the most studious of
                  us can easily forget to add these checks.  It is also easy to forget to add 
                  appropriate exception catch blocks.
               </p>
               <p>
                  So what is so great about exceptions then?  Well, let's imagine some error just occurred
                  and it caused an exception to be thrown.   If you forgot to setup catch blocks to deal with
                  the error then your program will be aborted.  Not exactly a great thing.  But you will, however,
                  be able to easily find out what exception was thrown.  Additionally, exceptions typically contain a
                  message telling you all about the error.  Moreover, 
                  any debugger worth its
                  salt will be able to show you a stack trace that let's you see exactly where the exception came from.
                   The exception <i>forces</i> you, the user, to 
                  be aware of this potential error and to add a catch block to deal with it. 
                  This is where the "hard to use wrong" comes from. 
               </p>
               <p>
                  Now let's imagine that we are using return codes to communicate errors to the user and the 
                  same error occurs.  If you forgot to do all your return code checking then you will
                  simply be unaware of the error.  Maybe your program will crash right away.  But more likely, it
                  will continue to run for a while before crashing at some random place far away from the source
                  of the error.  You and your debugger now get to spend a few hours of quality time 
                  together trying to figure out what went wrong.  
               </p>
               <p>
                  The above considerations are why I maintain that exceptions, when used properly, contribute to 
                  the "hard to use wrong" factor of a library. There are also other reasons to use exceptions.
                  They free the user from needing to clutter up code with lots of return code checking.  This makes
                  code easier to read and let's you focus more on the algorithm you are trying to implement and less
                  on the bookkeeping.  
               </p>
               <p>
                  Finally, it is important to note that there is a place for return codes.  When you answer "no"
                  to questions 1 and 2, I suggest using exceptions.  However, if you answer "yes" to even one
                  of them then I would recommend pretty much anything other than throwing an exception.  In this
                  case error codes are often an excellent idea.
               </p>


               <p>
                  As an aside, it is also important that your exception classes inherit from 
                  <a href="other.html#error">dlib::error</a> to maintain consistency with the rest of the library.
               </p>
               </ul>
            </li>


        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>9</anchor>
            <li> <h3>Write portable code</h3>
               <ul>
                  <li> <b>Don't complicate the build process </b>
                     <ul> <p>
                        One of dlib's design goals is to not require any installation 
                        process before it can be used.  A user should be able to copy 
                        the dlib folder into their project and have it just work.  
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        In particular, using dlib in a project should not make it difficult to
                        compile the project from the command line.  For example, all the 
                        example programs provided with dlib can be compiled using a single 
                        statement on the command line.  
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        Similarly, the user should be able to check the dlib folder into whatever
                        version control system they use without running into any difficulties.  
                        The user should then be able to check out copies of the code on any
                        of the dlib supported platforms and have their project build without
                        needing to mess with anything.  
                     </p> 
                     <p>
                        It is also important to know that dlib is mostly a header-only library. 
                        This is primarily a result of the heavy use of C++ templates.  Because of this, 
                        in many cases, all that is needed to use the library is to
                        add dlib into a compiler's include search path.  However, the most important
                        reason you need to know this is so you don't hassle me about providing a
                        "shared library" version of dlib. :)
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        This point deserves some explaining.  When you write a piece of
                        software that links against a shared library you need two things.  First,
                        you need the shared library object files and second you need the header files
                        for the library itself so you can #include them in your application.  However,
                        since nearly all the code in dlib is <i>in the header files</i> there isn't
                        any point in distributing it as a shared library.  
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        There are also a lot of technical problems with C++ shared libraries in general. 
                        You can read about shared libraries on 
                        <a href="http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html">this page</a> 
                        for more details.   If you still think C++ template libraries like dlib should be built as
                        shared libraries then you should refer yourself to the following documents which
                        have been submitted to the C++ standards committee:   
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2316.pdf">N2316: Modules in C++</a>, 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1496.html">N1496: Draft Proposal for 
Dynamic Libraries in C++</a>, and
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2425.html">N2425: Minimal Dynamic Library Support</a>.
                     </p>
                     </ul></li>
                  <li> <b>Don't make assumptions about how objects are laid out in memory. </b>
                     <ul> <p>
                         If you have been following the prohibition against messing around with
                         pointers then this won't even be an issue for you.  Moreover, just about the only
                         time this should even come up is when you are casting blocks of 
                         memory into other types or dumping the contents of memory to an I/O channel.
                         All of these things are highly non-portable so don't do them.
                        </p>
                        <p>
                           If you want a portable way to write the state of an object to an
                           I/O channel then I recommend you use the <a href="other.html#serialize">serialization</a>
                           capability in dlib.  If that doesn't suit your needs then do 
                           something else, but whatever you do don't just dump the contents of memory.  
                           Convert your data into some portable format and then output that.
                        </p>
                        <p>
                           As an example of something else you might do: suppose you have a bunch of integers 
                           you want to write to disk.  Assuming all your integers are positive numbers representable 
                           using 32 or fewer bits you could store all your numbers in 
                           <a href="other.html#uint32">dlib::uint32</a> variables and then convert them
                           into either big or little endian byte order and then write them to an output stream.  
                           You could do this using code similar to the following:

                           <pre>
   dlib::<a href="other.html#byte_orderer">byte_orderer</a>::kernel_1a bo;
   ...
   bo.host_to_big(my_uint);
   my_out_stream.write((char*)&amp;my_uint, sizeof(my_uint));
   ...
                           </pre>

                           <p>
                           There are three important things to understand about this process.  First, you need
                           to pick variables that always have the same size on all platforms.  This means you
                           can't use <i>any</i> of the built in C++ types like int, float, double, long, etc. All 
                           of these types have different sizes depending on your platform and even compiler settings. 
                           So you need to use something like dlib::uint32 to obtain a type of a known size.
                           </p>
                           <p>
                           Second, you need to convert each thing you write out into either big or little endian byte order.  
                           The reason for this is, again, portability.  If you don't explicitly convert to one
                           of these byte orders then you end up writing data out using whatever byte order
                           is used by your current machine.  If you do this then only machines that have the same
                           byte order as yours will be able to read in your data.  If you use the dlib::byte_orderer
                           object this is easy.  It is very type safe.  In fact, you should have a hard time even getting
                           it to compile if you use it wrong.
                           </p>
                           <p>
                           The third thing you should understand is that you need to write out each of your
                           variables one at a time.  You can't write out an entire struct in a  
                           single ostream.write() statement because the compiler is allowed to put any
                           kind of padding it feels like between the fields in a struct.  
                           </p>
                           <p>
                           You may be aware that compilers usually provide #pragma directives that allow you 
                           to explicitly control this padding.  However, if you want to submit code to dlib 
                           you will not use this feature.  Not all compilers support it in the same way and, 
                           more importantly, not all CPU architectures are even capable of running code that 
                           has had the padding messed with.  This is because it can result in the CPU attempting
                           to perform what is called an "unaligned load" which many CPUs (like the SPARC) are
                           incapable of doing.
                           </p>
                           <p>
                              So in summary, convert your data into a known type with a fixed size, then convert
                              into a specific byte order (like big endian), then write out each variable individually.
                              Or you could just use <a href="other.html#serialize">serialize</a> and not worry about all
                              this horrible stuff. :)
                           </p>
                           
                        </p>
                     </ul>
                  </li>

                  <li> <b> All code that calls functions that aren't in dlib or the C++
                     standard library must be isolated inside the API wrappers.</b>
                     <ul><p>
                        If you want to contribute code to dlib which needs to use something that isn't 
                        in the C++ standard then we need to introduce a new library component
                        in the <a href="api.html">API wrappers</a> section.  The new component would
                        provide whatever functionality you need.  This new component would have
                        to provide at least POSIX and win32 implementations.  
                     </p>
                     <p>
                        It is also worth pointing out that <i>simple</i> wrappers around operating system 
                        specific calls are usually a bad solution.  This is because there are
                        invariably subtle, if not huge, differences between what is available on different 
                        operating systems.
                        So being truly portable takes a lot of work.  It involves reading everything
                        you can find about all the APIs needed to implement the feature on each target platform.
                        In many cases there will be important details that are undocumented and you will
                        only be able to find out about them by searching the internet for other developers
                        complaining about bugs in API functions X, Y, and Z.  All this stuff needs to be abstracted
                        away to put a portable and simple interface in front of it.  So this is a task 
                        that shouldn't be taken lightly.
                     </p>
                     </ul>
                  </li>
               </ul></li>


        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>10</anchor>
            <li> <h3>Library components should have regression tests</h3>
               <ul>
                  <p>
                     dlib has a <a href="other.html#dlib_testing_suite">regression test suite</a> located in 
                     the dlib/test folder.  Whenever possible, library components should have tests
                     associated with them.  GUI components get a pass since it isn't very easy to setup
                     automatic tests for them but pretty much everything else should have some sort
                     of test.
                  </p>
               </ul>
            </li>

        <!--   ****************************  -->
            <anchor>11</anchor>
            <li> <h3>You must use the Boost Software License</h3>
               <ul>
                  <p>
                     Having the library use more than one open source license is confusing
                     so I ask that any code contributions be licensed under the Boost Software
                     License.
                  </p>
               </ul>
            </li>


         </ul>


        <!--   ****************************  -->




    
    </body>



    <!-- ************************************************************************* -->

</doc>

