Re: [boost] [rpc/marshal] prototype rpc / marshal library using asio and serialization (and futures in the future?)

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-29 18:20:36

Rene Rivera wrote:
>  From my own experience (I have my own RMI/RPC framework), I can say 
> that I agree with Peter. 

Actually I didn't think Peter and I were disagreeing :-)

> I have both sync and async calls and both are 
> beneficial. It is usually a matter of context which one you use. For 
> example I use sync calls during the connection process since in that 
> context nothing else makes much sense. 

Which is reasonable assuming 1) you make a connection up front independent of 
the actual RMI/RPC, 2) you don't have a high latency network (eg: over a 
satellite hop or two), 3) you control the machines used by both client and 
server, etc, etc.  Of course, you probably don't wait forever for a connection 
to complete, either, so I assume there's at least a built-in timeout...maybe 
even a disconnect/reconnect strategy.

> Almost everywhere else I use async calls.

Good choice ;-)

Really I think there's no disagreement here.  I don't have a problem with an 
RPC option that includes sync behavior.  I just don't want Stjepan to go down 
the path of building and all sync RPC solution b/c I don't think that's going 
to fly.

Jeff