Boost logo

Boost :

From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-10 13:42:41

Caleb Epstein wrote:

Hi Caleb,

> [...]
>> This is more about the big picture, stacking more complex interfaces
>> on top of it. I think we should implement iostreams for sockets
>> first, then we can go on to implement the mighty httpwistream that
>> will give you "wchar_t"s, whatever the document encoding was. :-)
> I think we should implement C++ sockets first, and then iostreams on
> top of those.
> I know there have been others that have agreed with this approach
> before. Are any of them following this thread?

basically I agree with you - we have been through all these discussions
before. However as there is so much to do for a socket library I appreciate
it if from time to time something is proposed at all (like this socketstream
library now :-). There are still all the requirements in the Wiki which I
tried to put in the UML diagram at (which also includes socket
streams of course).

Personally I am also more interested in the low level interfaces. We still
have to come up with a proposal how the asynchronicity pattern should look
like. Then we could start building up classes for the "Berkeley" package.
Unfortunately I had not much time lately but hope to go on working on the
asynchronicity pattern next. As socket streams won't support asynchronous
I/O (I think these were the latest news?) someone could go on building
socket streams (the implementation could be based on the "Berkeley" package
later). In the moment the low level "Berkeley" package is waiting for the
asynchronicity pattern.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at