From: Wynand Winterbach (wynand_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-19 06:14:34
I think I'll go for ACE. It has a very nice design from the big I've seen.
I suppose the only thing that mildly puts me off is the fact that the
design looks too OO :) Ok, I suppose I can't say that. If it works well,
then it does its job. I just have a natural aversion to anything that
looks as if it came out of a Java implementation, which is completely
irrational and unreasonable, but then again, languages are a sort of
religion to coders!
Anyhow, ACE looks as if it's easy enough to get to grips with for
what I need.
It's a shame that the boost sockets excitement has died down. It would
make a very worthy contribution. Also, with regards to my preference
for non-javaish code, I really like the STL like paradigm, and a
sockets library that would fit the bill would be heaven sent.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 02:23:50PM -0700, Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:59:37 +0200, Wynand Winterbach wrote
> > There is a myriad of socket frameworks in the members area.
> > Are any of them stable and usable?
> > I really don't feel like going through each and every one.
> > Any recommendations?
> The latest version is in the Sandbox. There was lots of discussion on the
> Wiki awhile back, but things seem to have died down.
> Anyway, it hasn't been reviewed so I don't know where it is going at this
> > I have tried the CommonCPP sockets, but I find them somewhat
> > unsatisfactory. Also, I thought socket++ was worthwhile, but
> > it just didn't work too well in the end.
> ACE (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html) is the big one here, but it
> is overkill for simple applications.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk