From: Peter Petrov (ppetrov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-19 23:29:22
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> That should not be difficult to achieve with derivation or some sort of
> policy. Looks like async_socket might be derived from sync_socket (or
> contain it).
This was also my thought - public derivation. I.e., the current socket
class is refactored into two classes - base (sync_socket) and and
derived (async_socket). The sync_socket class won't know anyhing about
demuxers (it doesn't need to). The async_socket class will add
asynchronous operations and binding to a specific demuxer.
Chris, what do you think about this?
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