Re: [boost] [asio] asio formal review

From: Andrew Schweitzer (a.schweitzer.grps_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-11 18:40:41

I vote to accept asio into Boost.

I don't have a lot of experience with networking, so I give myself only 
1/5 of a vote. In addition, I have not been able to use asio in 
production-quality, network intensive code. I have used it at home in a 
networked application that depends heavily on timeouts and noticed no 
problems (although I did seem to get exceptions from Boost::DateTime 
after a couple days). It was easy to use.

I will continue to look at it a bit more, but based on a) the lack of 
problems so far and b) my inexperience with this topic I will find 
anything meriting a no vote.

As usual, more documentation would help, in particular overview of 
internal architecture, possibly an expansion of the "Design" page. 
Existing documentation ain't bad. Example code is very easy to follow.

In general, what Dave Moore wrote fits my intuition about asio:

Dave Moore wrote:
> I vote to accept asio into Boost.  I have previously experimented with
> earlier releases in the asio 1.3.x series.  Using asio, I have built
> proof-of-concept applications that compile on Linux and Win32 handling udp
> multicast traffic at peak rates in excess of 100Mbit/s with low CPU
> utilization and no packet loss, even when compared with an existing
> hand-coded production implementation.  

[That's very reassuring.]

> Asio represents a serious effort at
> cross-platform networking by someone who clearly understands the problem
> domain.  I have been representing it to my colleagues as "ACE without the
> cruft."  

[That's my sense too. In particular I did not have to wrap anything with 
ACE stuff.... What exactly is "cruft" and Dave do you mind elaborating 
on this point?]

[snipped rest]

> 
> 
> David Moore
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>