From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-13 18:38:07
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> -I don't like the obscurity/anonymity of the Wiki. Who precisely
> those socket requirements, and what sort of concensus was there on
> them? Without going into specific detail beyond my initial response,
> I don't
> think that I would give a favorable review to a socket library based
> those requirements.
I don't know who wrote the socket requirements. I just felt that I shouldn't
ignore them. If there are any other requirements I would be happy to hear
them. Eg. it seems like we found a new requirement these days as several
people dislike the idea of a I/O streams based network library. I/O streams
support seems to be desired only on a higher level?
> Perhaps a reason that noone has designed a really great sockets
> yet is that there is little practical reason to, as BSD sockets is
> probably more portable (from a practical standpoint) than a Boost
> library will ever be, and libraries try to that "abstract" it have
> done nothing but get in the way.
Most developers probably make a decision which I/O model they want to
support and forget about the rest. As there are four I/O models it doesn't
make much sense if they are implemented by different developers again and
again. This should be a very good reason to create a C++ network library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk