Boost logo

Boost :

From: Boris Schäling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-25 18:56:49

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Jeff Garland
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: RE: [boost] NonBlocking I/O--Multiplexing (was Sockets)

> [...]
> > On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 21:23, Jeff Garland wrote:
> > > Is there a reason why we can't define a simple socket library first
> > > as a lower layer without the complications of multiplexing and
> > > threading and then add those on top?
> Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> > That seems reasonable, since due to the great differences between the
> > blocking and multiplexing models, the interface would be very
> > different. For example, a streambuf interface would not be very usuable
> > in a non-blocking multiplexing model, and furthermore using C++
> I don't agree that streams and streambufs are not useable with
> non-blocking I/O. ACE provides stream classes that can do can be
> used with a blocking or non-blocking model. Also see prior
> discussion on this list from March 2001...
> It starts here,
> But really starts getting into this here:

I read the mails. In the moment I also think that it's not possible to use
streams or streambufs because new methods have to be added and others
dropped. But then we get complete new classes?
Maybe it's better to see some code. Do you have any links to the ACE stream
classes? I found but
that doesn't look like std::iostream.
We are still talking about multiplexing and not just blocking/non-blocking,
do we? Or am I in the wrong thread? ;)


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at