[boost] Re: [network] An RFC - updated

From: Michel André (michel.andre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-22 17:31:01

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Iain Hanson wrote:> 
> I'm not sure that you can beat the library from the client side with 
> respect to the number of memory allocations. With N asynchronous reads 
> active you need to keep N buffers alive. The library can manage with 
> just one in the select case.

Should several pending reads be allowed? I have leaned back and forth on 
this issue in a previous platform specific async com library I wrote. 
Actually I ended up supporting several pending reads with user supplied 
buffers, but the actual clients never have or had reason to have more 
than one pending read.

>> and be a source of runtime errors as a result a user not copying the 
>> buffer
>> and trying to use it after its lifetime expired.
> 
> 
> I'm fairly confident that manual buffer management will introduce even 
> more runtime errors. ;-) (That's been my experience with async 
> reads/writes, at least.)

Do you have any preferences as wheter to use basic_streambuf or not as 
the buffer interface?

/Michel