Re: [boost] [Ann] socketstream library 0.7

From: Maxim Yegorushkin (e-maxim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-13 02:46:54

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:10:26 +0400, Caleb Epstein  
<caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote:

[]

> Sockets are not files, and I think to treat them identically, and
> build a library assuming that iostreams is the lowest level interface
> anyone could want to use is folly.  There are large, measurable,
> performance trade-offs associated with iostreams compared to C stdio
> operations on every platform I have encountered, and similarly when
> compared to the low level system read and write (or send/recv) calls.
>
> I write high speed, network-centric, message-driven applications for a
> living.  I would not be able to write applications that scale properly
> using a purely iostreams based interface to the network.  The high
> level abstractions are nice for simpler applications, but they simply
> don't work well when you need to scale to managing many hundreds of
> connections and guaranteeing a certain quality of service to each.  A
> blocking I/O model is not acceptable for my uses.

Totally agree.

IMO, sockets is a border area for boost whose "emphasis is on libraries  
which work well with the C++ Standard Library". C++ Standard Library  
itself does not work well with sockets or, more precisely, does not offer  
low fat async input / output abstractions.

-- 
Maxim Yegorushkin