Boost logo

Boost :

From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-13 04:54:51

Douglas Gregor wrote:
> [...] 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
> library yet.
> 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".

I absolutely agree. We have lots of ideas in the Wiki at
I put up another page at not
to come up with new ideas again but do give a summary about what seems to be
sure and what we can build on. That's why I started this thread yesterday to
ask if we have now a few things everyone agrees with and we can move on. I
try not to give new ideas or posting source code but to concentrate on what
most of us actually want. I wish there was a network library already. But
the reason why people started with a socket library and then left again
unfinished is that there are lots of different opinions about what this
library should do and look like. If we get through the requirements we
hopefully can start with the implementation as then it will be too late for
anyone to complain - then I'll point them to they
can understand and learn why what decisions were made.


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