Boost logo

Boost :

From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-16 10:22:06

Michel André wrote:
> [...] Another slight mishap is that the things you call acceptor and
> connector arent acceptors and connectors in the sense of the original
> pattern ( or POSA 2)
> as I interpret it.

I read the 17 pages for a better understanding. And I think you are right
that we use different definitions. In the paper acceptor and connector are
factories while in the class hierarchy at they are an endpoint of a
communication link. While I understand that the acceptor-connector pattern
makes sense I think we should use it in a level > 0. If you look at the
connector for example (in the acceptor-connector pattern) it is used to
establish a connection and then passes over the connection to a service
handler to do the processing. If level 0 should be similar to Berkeley
sockets (and as far as I understand this is one goal of level 0) I don't
know why the connector shouldn't be able to do the processing after the
connection is established. In this level processing basically means calling
read() and write(). A service handler in the acceptor-connector pattern is
probably something bigger than a socket? Using the acceptor-connector
pattern in level 0 would work but would also make the design more
complicated as it should be to convince network programmers to switch over
to the C++ network library.


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