Re: [boost] Re: Network library: What we have until now

From: Iain Hanson (Iain.Hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-14 07:07:42

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:29 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Don G <dongryphon_at_[hidden]>  
> wrote:

> Was not Mac OS Classic been buried long ago?
People on this thread are still discussing Win95 :-(.

> 
> IMO, sockets are abstractions out of the scope of any language. Their  
> interfaces can be implemented using any general purpose programming  
> language, but still you'll have to call an underlying OS C API. That's a  
> fact of life and I don't think this is bad - C is the most portable  
> programming language ever.

Yes. But, that is not necessarily the 'C' socket lib :-). An optimal
( but not very portable ) implementation would replace the 'C' socket
lib.

> Here is my two philosophy cents.
> 
> You propose another set of concepts over socket concepts just to  
> send/receive a bunch of mere bytes. Geez, another glue layer over sockets  
> that adds nothing but syntax sugar. Aren't we already tired of software  
> bloated from glue layers over glue layers over...? You don't just send  
> bytes, rather you execute protocols. Sockets have the right implementation  
> level and complexity to build *efficient* protocols upon. 
I agree with you. I think the well defined concepts developed from BSD
sockets and well known by many programmers is what we need for a layer 1
sockets lib. And I've always liked the idea of being able to specify
protocols as a Spirit grammar. 

> Protocol is the  
> only glue layer you really always need, the layer that binds your  
> application logic with network transport layer (sockets) providing the  
[snip]                           ^^^^^^^^

and Network and Data Link Layers.

/ikh