Re: [boost] [rfc] I/O Library Design

From: Scott Woods (scott.suzuki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-10 20:16:48

On 7/1/07, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Scott Woods wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeremy Maitin-Shepard" <jbms_at_[hidden]>

[snip]

> > The short version;
> > 1. Drop "Compression Filter and Misc. Filter" from "Binary Transport Layer"
> > 2. Rename "Buffer Filter" as just "Buffering"
> > 3. Bundle "Endianness" and "Representation" and call it "Network/Host
> > Representation"
> > 4. Pull the resulting "Network/Host Representation" out of the presented
> > layering
> > 5. Define other representations such as "ASCII Line", "UTF-8 XML" and
> > "Command Line User"
> > 6. Allow for representations to be composable, e.g,
> > Command Line User<input = keys to basic C++ types,output = basic types to
> > UTF 8>
> >
> Although I think your ideas for an interpretation framework are
> interesting, I think you're applying them at the wrong level. For all
> its layering, my library concept is still intended (except for the
> formatting) as a low-level stream interface. Your framework might build
> on top of it, perhaps even modifying the chains as it goes along.
> However, I don't think mutilating the structure and generality of the
> interface for the sake of such an interpretation scheme is justified.
>

[snip]

Hi Sebastien,

I mostly understand your comments and can also understand your direction.
While there is major overlap between my directions (i.e. clean and
efficient transfer of application data to system files and through networks)
and yours I am not sure about what I can contribute to this thread. I will
continue to listen in. I hope to have something to try out on boosters in the
next few weeks. It will be good to get your feedback :-)

On one thing I do disagree. Your are committed to a "low-level stream interface"
and strongly distinguish this from a "interpretation scheme". Until
proven otherwise
I will continue to champion the latter. While there must be some equivalent of
getc+putc (or cin >> c), this by itself is almost useless, i.e. there is always
"interpretation". Whether that is reconstruction of unsigned long integers from
a network-ordering or a wstring from a UTF8 stream. I'm pretty
confident that you
would say "of course" but what I do get confused about is the notion
that the scope of your work somehow does not include "interpretation".

Cheers,
Scott