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
>> 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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk