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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-24 16:50:16

Don G wrote:
>> This doesn't make any of these streams networks,
>> and neither is a communication port a network.
>
> I won't debate semantics here (too much<g>): Once the line is up,
> communications between A and B occur in exactly the same way as they
> would with TCP/IP. Both ends "listen" for incoming stream connections
> on multiple ports (each for a different "service"), each can accept
> one or more datagrams on different ports, again for different
> services. In a nutshell, they are abstractly identical. The big
> difference is that the entire network consists of two hosts.

Yes, I see. I was thinking of a different scenario, however, one in which 
you communicate with a device over a serial line (not with another host) 
using a specified protocol. Since serial lines are relatively slow, 
asynchronous communication is a good thing.

>> This of course leads to the obvious question:
>> which network gives me a stream over COM1?
>
>  network_ptr com1 =
>        new net_over_stream(
>                new stream_over_serial("com1"));

Wait a minute. Which network creates the stream_over_serial? Assume that I 
don't need the outer network since I'll be communicating with a printer, for 
example.

>> LPT1?
>
>  network_ptr lpt1 =
>        new net_over_stream(
>                new stream_over_lpt("lpt1"));

Same question. :-)

>> Your addresses are network-dependent and cannot
>> be used outside of the context of their network.
>> They may look like URIs, but they are not.
>
> Please see previous point.
>
> Why is this universal: "http://www.boost.com"? It is only universal
> in the sense that it represents a host on the Internet. That fact
> must be inferred from "http" as in "oh, http is an Internet thing,
> and the rest is "user:pswd_at_host:port/path?query because that's what
> we all agree on". Which simply means a common lexicon of schemes and
> their interpretation. Again, unless I am missing something.

My point was that different network objects can interpret the same address 
to mean different things, at least in theory. URIs are supposed to be 
context-independent.