From: Michel André (michel.andre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-15 12:13:12
>> At the very end of it, network programmers should be using a
>> callback-driven interface and not have to worry about multiplexing at
>> all, but I agree that for now a third layer should be deferred until
>> the basic groundwork has been laid out.
Yes the level 2 interface should be callback driven. And to some agree i
guess the end user have to worry about multiplexeing. At least by declaring
somekind of multiplexor (proactor, reactor) and driving the main
multiplexing loop and letting the user of the library handle threading
issues (apart from the library declaring that the multiplexing primitives
are thread safe).
> I believe we agree :-) BTW, I've been thinking for awhile that either
> boost::function or boost::signal will provide us with core of that
> callback framework that diverges from the traditional OO approach
> taken by ACE and as is proposed currently on the Wiki.
The asynch part in the sandbox uses boost.function as a completion callback
mechanism. And i the reactor i envision would use boost.function to notify
that a socket is ready.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk