From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-20 18:03:14
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:39:50 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote
> Clearly this would be interesting to a lot of people.
> Since you've already written working code and presumably dealt with
> lots of practical issue of design and implementation, maybe it would
> be most helpful if you summarize your proposal in the form of a
> library documentation. This would make it much easier to discuss
> such a thing. This would be helpful because lots of people are
I agree -- this post has already received several responses indicating interest.
> going to see different applications for this and will have a lot to say.
> Someone is going to want to to look like threads
> Someone is going to want it to control asyncronous processes on networked
> Someone is going to twant to pass data via [filtered] streams
> Someone else is going to feel that's too inefficient
> Although this is looking simple right now. Its a big topic. Hang on
> to your hat.
While I agree that this will likely happen, I, for one, will argue for
simplicity. We won't get all these features and we don't need them. A
blocking implementation can be trivially wrapped with threads -- write that as
an example it doesn't need to be a feature of the library. The 'inefficient
folks' should abandon C++ and go back to C. We don't have an async i/o design
for standard streams and I don't think we should try to solve that with this
library -- and anyone that complains about this should come forth with a
proposal as far as I'm concerned....
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk