From: dmoore99atwork (dmoore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-01 13:20:56
--- In boost_at_y..., Iain.Hanson_at_u... wrote:
> Ahhh. Now I think I understand where the confusion is comming from.
> requirements state that we need to restrict ourselves to the
> transport layers and not go off into http and ftp.
> I have no desire to go against this requirements but IP is not the
> layer protocol that is supported by the C sockets API.
> I would like to reproduce, as much as possible, of the genericity
of the C
> sockets API with type saftey and without some of the redunancy.
Yes, but I think what alot of folks are suggesting is that:
1. We shouldn't do anything blatant to *prevent* the interface from
working with Unix domain sockets, named pipes, etc.
2. BUT, focus on a high quality implementation for the IP family
(TCP and UDP over IPv4 and IPv6) that adds the type safety, steers
the user away from common mistakes
3. Hopefully presents an elegant, platform independent means of
using non-blocking or asynchronous communications.
Personally, I'd like to see the combined expertise of this board
brought to bear on 2 and especially 3 before we provide concrete
implementations for every socket protocol and address type under the
I think the ideas you've been presenting are a GREAT foundation for
#1, and what you're hearing from others is an eagerness to tackle the
next items on the list. Surely most people hear "socket" and think
TCP or UDP...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk