From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-09 14:12:00
Simon Richter wrote:
> Caleb Epstein wrote:
>>>>Please do! Does either of the implementations offer an interface to
>>>>the sockets at a lower level than iostreams though?
>>>Mine doesn't, so far, as I haven't seen a need for it.
>>I believe it is an absolute requirement for a C++ Sockets library.
> Hrm, I have never missed being able to access files from a lower level
> than iostreams so far. :-) I never do binary I/O directly in my
> applications but always implement an inserter/extractor pair that uses
> streambuf iterators, though.
See ? As soon as you don't care for formatting you do want access to
the underlaying streambuf object, which, in this case, would be a much
more suitable place to put the extra API to manipulate socket-specific
> iostreams' read()/write() should be enough for stream-based I/O, and for
> datagrams I'd propose going through another step anyway (i.e. have a
> separate stream class that does not derive from the standard iostreams
> but rather allows inserting and extracting packets only.
Why use iostream's read if you can do that on the streambuf object directly.
And, why use the concept of a 'stream' at all when dealing with datagrams ?
That doesn't sound like a good fit to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk