[boost] Re: Re: (Another) socket streams library

From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-22 13:54:23

Caleb Epstein wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, how should the stream object behave in case of EWOULDBLOCK? Set
>> failbit? Even if we use a wouldblockbit, we still need to set
>> failbit,
>> as the only thing clear is that the operation was *not* successful.
>
> I would not recommend combining non-blocking I/O with streams, at
> least not in any way that becomes visible to the user of the stream.

As far as I can see EWOULDBLOCK is just another reason for a stream to fail. 
If you use << or >> with streams you must be prepared for failure any way. 
The only difference with EWOULDBLOCK is that you have to call << or >> 
again. However if I think about it I wonder how reasonable non-blocking I/O 
streams are at all as they don't support multiplexing - the application 
would need to call << or >> again and again?

> I'm just advocating that the lowest level API should provide this
> functionality.  Streams operate at a higher level.

After following most of the discussions I think this is broad consensus. 
That's why http://www.highscore.de/boost/net/packages.png looks like it 
does.

Boris