From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-13 04:24:13
On Apr 13, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Boris wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> I think the scope of this library is insane. We don't need to solve
>> every single network I/O problem with one huge networking library.
>> Having a solid socket library that handles only blocking with be a
>> _huge_ improvement . Start small and don't be afraid to say "No!
>> That's for the next version."
> I don't see any problem. Have a look at the network library in .NET -
> support all four I/O models (actually they are all implemented in just
> class). Blocking and non-blocking calls are easy to implement anyway,
> multiplexing requires some object-oriented select and the async stuff
> been extensively discussed in
> If we don't think
> about all four I/O models in the beginning we might end up with
> like std::iostreams and find out later that we have no async support
> and no
> idea how to add it. As far as I have seen the source codes provided by
> Michel and others also include all four I/O models.
Here's the problem: we've been discussing and working on a sockets
library for *years*. People have come, started working on it, and left
before anything ever came up for review. It's getting to the point
where it's become embarrassing to Boost that we *don't* have a sockets
Here's more motivation: the C++ committee is planning to finish the
next revision of the C++ standard in the next few years, and I stress
*few*. Boost has been a wonderful source of libraries for the C++
committee, and C++ would be greatly improved if the next version of the
standard library contained a sockets library... this library could be
that library, but we have to finish it, review it, and be sure it's
right. We can't review what doesn't come up for review. "Finished" is
more important than "complete".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk