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

From: Don G (dongryphon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-23 00:38:04

Hi Michel,

> Is it a problem that the special or specific adresses is
> represented by different textual representations for
> different networks? I guess a textual representation
> could be devised that makes these look the same with
> some psuedo notation.
> Like broadcast tcp:/[broadcast]:1234, 
> tcp6:/[broadcast]:1234, local tcp:/[local]:1234,
> tcp6:/[local]:1234, any 
> tcp:/[any]:1234, tcp6:/[any]:1234 this would i guess
> alleviate some of  the eventual problems.

The pseudo-tokens would work as long as they weren't ambiguous with
allowed machine names in that network. I think a simple layer to
register network objects (so you don't get them all linked in<g>),
plus a fully general text-to-address object mapping would be a
reasonable facility.

Again, though, I view this as a (good) simplified use case and would
still want control over the life-time of these objects (see other
posts for the sad story<g>). I do recognize my concerns here are
probably not too common, but all this might mean is that an http_get
wrapper would be overloaded on url and address_ptr. The former would
call the later after a lookup.

Best,
Don

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com