From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 12:52:07
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> So heres my question to the Boost community. How many people have
> similar concerns and experiences? How often, in real code, do
We face similar questions in the design of the socket library. There are
basically two I/O models: synchronous and asynchronous read-/write-methods.
The asynchronous I/O model can be implemented quite differently using
multiplexing, aio, I/O completion ports, threads etc. Now someone said he
wants to have some sort of control about how the asynchronous I/O model
works eg. by specifying the number of background threads. Clearly that would
be only possible if the asynchronous I/O model is based on threads.
Currently I assume there are just two classes synchronous and asynchronous
but I can think of lots of other classes that might be added later and
inherit from asynchronous.
Your posting reminds me a bit of the compliance levels in UML 2.0.
Everything in UML 2.0 belongs either to Basic (level 1), Intermediate (level
2) or Complete (level 3). In order to compare capabilities of UML tools
there is either no compliance, partial compliance, compliant compliance or
interchange compliance. It's more complicated than a simple black and white
but a tribute to the fact that black and white just doesn't exist in
reality. I don't know about Boost.Thread but I understand that some library
users would like to know how an asynchronous I/O model works and what they
can do about it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk