RE: [boost] Re: AW: Re: AW: Sockets

From: Boris Schäling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-23 19:05:37

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Hugo Duncan
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 12:11 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: AW: Re: AW: Sockets

> Boris,
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 21:35:58 +0100, Boris Schäling
> <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > favoured independent socket classes.
> Not sure what you mean by independent classes?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. There are several I/O models:
1) blocking
2) multiplexing
3) signal-driven
4) asynchronous

In former discussions some people wanted to see a library for 1), others
wanted to see a library for 2). The library you propose fits to 1) as far as
I can tell. The reason why I proposed two different socket libraries in
another mail some hours ago is because of the different models that are
possible. As blocking and multiplexing are possibly the most used models
Boost should support both.

In a multiplexing model the classes need to form a team - someone has to
multiplex everything. In a blocking model classes are not dependent on each
other: You can use eg. a socket class and don't have to tell another class
that it should poll over the socket descriptor.

I will try to set up another page at Boost Wiki to explain in detail what I
mean by multiplexing library.

> > java.net and java.nio packages provide different approaches to
> Had a quick look at these. Isn't java.nio just a layer on top of jav.net ?
> Which library corresponds to which usage ?

Oops, I meant java.nio.channels. Classes in java.nio.channels enable
application developers to use multiplexing while classes in java.net support
blocking model.

Boris