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
> - 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk