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

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-16 15:43:37

Sorry I haven't been following this -- having back problems that prevent me
from sitting down -- bad problem for a programmer :-(  Anyway a couple
thoughts....

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:24:13 +0200, 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. 

I think that having a 'bunch of individuals' is a big part of the problem.  We
really need a group of people with a shared vision to work together.  That way
one person walking away doesn't shut things down totally. 

> It's getting to the point where it's become embarrassing to Boost 
> that we *don't* have a sockets library yet.

No reason to be embarassed.  However, I'm disappointed that we are continuing
to just discuss this.  We've discussed the concepts and a working prototype of
the core has already been built using boost practices:

http://giallo.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html

Yet we continue to go forth with individual efforts.  To me, people with time
and motiviation should help Hugo with his effort, which I believe implements
the concepts we have been discussing for years.  Not perfect, but a good
start.  If I had time I'd do it myself. If this doesn't work, we should really
be laying out a collaborative plan to start over as a group.  

> 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 

Agree -- Boost has really helped close the 'library gap' for C++ compared to
other languages.  Sockets is a big gaping hole...

> 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".

Like filesystem and some other libs I think we all agree that the only way
this will happen is if we get a core and build.  But it is still possibly a
multi-year effort and I think clearly too much for a single author -- unless
they have full time to devote to it...

Jeff