Re: sockets library

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-21 10:59:48

--- In boost_at_y..., "mfdylan" <dylan_at_m...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > 
> > There's no evidence that a binary_stream need to be inefficient.  
> In 
> > fact the majority of overhead in iostreams comes from locales and 
> > formatting facilities, both of which would not exist in a 
> > binary_stream.  I'd be willing to bet that we could develop a 
> > binary_stream that was as efficient as a lower level abstraction, 
> and 
> > there's a lot of power that comes from such a design.  For 
instance 
> > it becomes quite easy to define inserters and extractors for 
> > arbitrary types, allows for pluggable converters for native 
> > representations, XDR representations, etc.
> > 
> That's an interesting idea, mine doesn't allow pluggable convertors.
> Maybe a templated convertor would be more sensible?
> How useful would a "native representation" be?

A template argument is a form of a pluggable convertor to my mind. :)

Native respresentations are extremely useful.  In fact, I use native 
formatted binary files all the time, while I need a portable 
representation only rarely (and usually can get by with text in that 
case).  An XDR converter or other converters would be nice, but are 
hardly necessary for a binary_stream library.  (They will be 
necessary for a socket library using a binary_stream library, though. 
That's why I said you need to step back and view this as a seperate 
library and not design it adhoc because of a perceived need in a 
socket library.)

Bill Kempf