Boost logo

Boost :

From: Michel André (michel.andre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-12 12:52:20

Don G wrote:
> I have also been putting together some ideas which are similar to
> those you outlined, though perhaps at a higher level of abstraction.
> I will try to wrap up what I have and post it in the next day or two.
> I will also try to look more closely at your code.

It's not that much code more interfaces ;), but implementability on at
least linux, solaris, windows is a minimum.

>>From a quick read, it looks similar to the implementation path I had
> used at my work, but probably more flexible in how event_dispatcher
> relates to event_handler. I think there is a good likelihood that the
> two are complementary.

Ok could you expand a bit? What do you mean by complementary?

> 1. Should the network library provide different choices of
> implementation to the user? For the most part, the platform will
> dictate the available solutions, so having the user decide would make
> their code non-portable. [my thought so far is no]
> 2. Would it be better perhaps to only provide behavior choices (sync,
> async, non-blocking) as part of the interface? [my thought is yes]

I think two but not providing choices just support them all
automatically and efficiently. And give the user a possibilty to plugin
own implementations of the concepts.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at