From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-22 17:59:03
Michel André wrote:
> 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.
Definitely; a server that has N active connections might have up to N reads
active at any time. Not on the same socket, of course. :-)
>> 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?
I'm not sure what basic_streambuf would buy me over char or vector<char>.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk