From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-14 16:13:32
Caleb Epstein wrote:
> I think I see your point here, but I'm not 100% convinced that this is
> the right place to put url. It seems to me that the concept of URL
> belongs at a higher level, since the only portion you can use at the
> network level is a hostname and port. It might be expedient for a
> high-level HTTP library to be able to pass URLs all the way down to
> the network level, but it would be nearly as easy for that library to
> make use of its own URL object which had methods for extracting the
> "address_specifier" information.
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
I agree with you that URLs and alike belong to a higher level. Level 0 will
ultimately depend on C APIs like Berkeley sockets. Concepts like URLs will
be implemented in a higher level based on whatever we have in level 0.
I put the packages in http://www.highscore.de/boost/net/packages.png which
were discussed before on this list. However there are packages missing
because I don't know how to define them. There are various ideas like the
concept of URLs but I don't want to put everything in a package level 1
because we have different goals here, too. If we assume that there will be a
package called boost::net::iostream which provides synchronous I/O
operations for sockets on a higher level I don't want to put URL into this
package. So what is this package about where URL belongs to? This would help
to get a more complete picture about all the dependencies of a network