[boost] Re: Re: sockets library question

From: Hugo Duncan (hugoduncan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-14 09:48:21

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:31:03 -0700, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I believe we have gradually built enough
> base that if we could find a few volunteers with a some 
> time to invest we could finally get a kernal of the library
> available for review.

There is a basic low level socket implementation (socket_base),
and Michel André has put together an extension of this for the
asynchronous methods on NT.

At this stage we need to decide what would be the scope of an
initial submission.  Is the basic socket design useful in itself,
or would the proactor and reactor patterns be required for the
library to have any meaning?  Is the level 1 design (without 
reactor/proactor classes) sufficient for client usage?

Ultimately I would like to hope that we can build a framework
where the choice of procator, reactor and threading decisons
can be completely seperated from the application code, with 
these decisions being implemented as policies.   But that is
 going to take quite a while to get right....

So far everythng has been tested on NT only (vc7, bcc, gcc),
so we are especially in need of volunteers for trying things
out on unix platforms.

Hugo