From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-11 02:27:07
On 8/11/05, Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 8/10/05, Jose <jmalv04_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On top of that, having an acceptor and connector implementation with
> > basic http examples would go a long way towards advancing in the right
> > direction.
> What do you consider "the right direction"? Aside from the lack of
> higher-level examples, what do you think asio is lacking?
"the right direction" would be having one or two net libraries that
are widely used by boost users so that they are a de facto standard
here and we all benefit from that. I don't like reinventing the wheel
>From a newbie perspective, the examples are what attracts me to a
library. If the example are practical/useful and real world then I
want to use it.
> > If you plan to do this then I would gladly use it and provide
> > feedback. I would wait first for more opinions. I am coming from the
> > newbie boost user perspective that wants to build networking apps
> > easily and doesn't need ACE.
> ACE is indeed overkill for *just* networking, but it is battle-tested,
> feature-rich, fast, and *very* portable. Like it or not, many of the
> patterns implemented in ACE are must-haves once you have a nice
> networking library and want to start writing more complex applications
> (logging, threads, synchronization primitives, message queues, active
> objects, etc.). Boost provides a number of these, but the sheer
> breadth, depth, and maturity of ACE makes for a very compelling
Yes, but I think many boost users are looking for something simpler
(based on the many networking threads written) that leverages other
boost libraries as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk