Re: [boost] Inactive Objects

From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jbms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-18 20:46:48

Mark Blewett <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [snip: supporting multi-threading implies supporting scalability]

> IMHO (apart from inter-thread comms) that means support for asynchronous
> i/o. For example if boost.sockets only supported blocking calls, I would be
> disappointed, at a minimum i'd expect to be able to write a "commercial"
> webserver.

I agree, supporting asynchronous I/O is, IMO, an absolute requirement
for a boost socket library.

> This is where I run into problems... how far should boost abstract the
> underlying system? Yes it would be nice to have a well defined, standard, tested
> common asynchronous i/o library... but is it an abstraction too far?

No, I don't think so.  Writing an efficient portable asynchronous
(socket/pipe) I/O library which also easily supports user-defined
protocol layers, and which ideally also elegantly supports blocking and
non-blocking I/O within the framework as well is not an easy task, but
it can be done.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard