Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Another) socket streams library

From: Iain K. Hanson (ikh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-25 19:30:17

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:31:43AM +0300, Boris wrote:
> Rob Stewart wrote:
[snip]
> 
> However I withdraw the idea of non-blocking I/O support in socket streams 
> anyway as we can't know with the standard interface if "s << a" fails 
> partially.
> 
Whether it is non-blocking or not is AFAICS is irrelevant. if is sizeof char
then a is not in the buffer and the failure is because of buffer write.
if a is > size of char then some part of a is in the buffer upto the point that
the buffer overflows. If you know the sizeof the buffer, where you are in the 
buffer and the size of a then you know how much of a is in the buffer.

However, only a fool would allow the buffer to overflow across a single <<.

> I don't know how many developers require non-blocking unformatted I/O 
> functions. I think most developers like streams because of code like "s << a 
> << b << c << d". It's probably not worth the effort to support non-blocking 
> unformatted I/O functions. If anyone thinks differently he should tell us 
> now! :)

Blocking or non-blocking iiuc is irrelevant. And you want formatted I/O to
do marshalling which is the main advantage of iostreams.

/ikh