Re: [boost] Re: Re: sockets library question

From: Blue, Reginald V (Reginald.Blue_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-14 10:38:53

"Hugo Duncan" <hugoduncan_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:<1103_1042555701_at_[hidden]>...
> 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?

I can only speak for myself.  Basically, all I need is a very simple
mechanism to stream objects from one process to another.

It seemed to me that using the overloaded >> and << operators would be a
good place to start as I can serialize the objects to a file (through
ostream) and then unserialize them.

(These are very simple objects...so the overhead of using formatted I/O
doesn't worry me.)

Once I had that going, then all I would need is a sockets library that could
handle streams over top of them, so I went looking around and, now I'm here.

So, from my perspective, a very simple boring sender and listener would be
perfect.

As an aside, once I would have all of this working, I would start wanting to
replace the << and >> ostream operators with something that would produce
and consume a stream containing XML data (so that I could cross communicate
with Java processes).  That's the ultimate destination for me.