Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-11 08:30:45

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:18:09 +1100 (EST), Christopher Kohlhoff wrote
> Hello all,
> As part of cleaning up asio's interface I am pondering the utility of
> the read_at_least_n/write_at_least_n free functions. I'd appreciate
> hearing from anyone who actually uses these functions (or their async
> counterparts), and anyone else who has an opinion on the matter :)
> The rationale for their existence is the use case where you want to
> ensure that a minimum number of bytes are transferred, but are
> willing to receive more than that minimum in order to minimise the
> number of system calls. However I have never used them in practice,
> and suspect that an application that needed that level of control
> might prefer to use the lower level (i.e. partial-read/write)
> functions directly.
> I'm considering taking them out for now on the following basis:
> - I want to simplify the asio interface to improve clarity and
> ease-of-use.
> - I want to get asio ready for review asap. Including the functionality
> requires much more thought on how to make it elegant.
> - asio is obviously useful without them.
> So essentially I am proposing that the version of asio submitted for
> boost review does not include this functionality. If a compelling use
> case emerges in practice then the functionality can be added back after
> more careful consideration of the design (and with, I believe, no
> impact on other functionality). If somebody has a need right now,
> then I'll look at keeping them in, but it will delay getting a
> version ready for review submission.

The comment isn't based on experience with asio interface, but on general
design experience. I'd take them out. Your logic is good -- simplier is
better, removing interfaces is difficult, adding is easy. Of course
significant usage trumps this comment...


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