From: Boris Schäling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-23 15:35:58
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]Im Auftrag von Hugo Duncan
> Gesendet: Samstag, 23. November 2002 20:47
> An: boost_at_[hidden]
> Betreff: [boost] Re: AW: Sockets
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:13:14 +0100, Boris Schäling
> <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I read your library requirements.
> > I don't agree that a socket library should wrap rather than invent.
> Agreed that the C++ library should leverage the power of C++,
> but we could do this while remaining in some way familiar. The
> intent is to provide a clean C++ interface.
> Certainly at a higher level some form of smart address resolution
> should be provided, but I don't think that obviates the need for
> seperate address classes for seperate protocols, for those people
> who do not want to pay for functionality that they do not need.
As far as I remember former discussions in this list some people supported a
select()/poll()/somehow centralized interface others favoured independent
socket classes. What about two different socket libraries? One simple
select()/poll() based library comparable to ACE following the Reactor
pattern and one more complex library with independent classes? A C++-socket
library following the Reactor pattern would be much easier to use than
select() or poll() in C. Two socket libraries would be comparable to Java
where the java.net and java.nio packages provide different approaches to
connect to the network.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk