From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-14 10:37:57
> >> [...]
> >> How about borrowing ideas from ACE, but implementing them in
> >> modern C++? Or has that been discussed already? Or is the ACE
> >> framework too obsolete-C++ to be a useful design?
> > We probably should at least consider ACE ideas. But I guess this would
> > require several of us to dig into ACE which would delay further a Boost
> > socket library. However ACE could be a valuable investment?
> >From what I've heard, the ACE architecture is highly interdependent,
> with everything depending on everything else. There /might/ be
> something to be gained by looking at its interface, but I would
> approach it with caution.
This has been my experience too. It was the primary reason that we rejected
ACE for our socket needs on the project I am on at the moment. Unfortunately
there didn't seem to be too many alternatives for portable, robust and well
thought out socket based libraries (that we could find, anyway). This is why
I am so keen to see a good boost implementation (so far we have written our
own simple solution on top of a handful of wrapper classes we dug up from
Although it would be great to see boost.sockets out there sooner rather than
later I would hate to think that it was rushed for the sake of getting it
out. The scarcity of good socket libraries, especially ones that don't bind
you to a framework, suggests (to me at least) that this is not a trivial
thing to achieve successfully.
FWIW, I personally still thing that the POSA2 patterns that ACE uses are
basically sound (not that I am any sort of authority in this area). Of
course a layered approach is critical to the framework-busting goal, but I
don't think anyone disputes that.
Just my tuppence worth,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk