Re: [boost] [asio] asio formal review

From: Christopher Kohlhoff (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-12 06:37:27

Hi Dave,

--- Dave Moore <jdmoore99_at_[hidden]> wrote:
<snip>
> For the deadline_time, I am unsure as to whether functions
> like "expires_from_now" benefit from their default coupling to
> boost::datetime.  Most timer operations in high performance
> I/O tend to be relative, which is easily expressed without a
> clock binding.   It does help that asio only depends upon the
> headers of datetime.

What did you have in mind? I rather like the date_time way of
expressing units as an aid to code documentation:

  timer.expires_from_now(seconds(5));

<snip>
> The Doxygen docs are a bit hard to navigate.  I would prefer
> hand-written documentation of the common public classes and
> concepts like buffer, deadline_timer, datagram_socket, etc.
> Doxygen docs are useful for completeness, but is seems to me
> like many of the classes in Boost::asio are of interest only
> to those looking to extend the framework.  The documentation
> could be split  into sections for users looking for basic
> async sockets, and users wanting to write their own services
> or demuxers.

Fair points. I would like to spend some time writing book-style
introductory documentation that addresses this sort of audience
by ignoring the basic_* templates and treating them as though
they are classes (same as basic_string vs string).

> There weren't obvious instructions on how to overlay the asio
> boost evaluation package into an existing boost source tree.
> It seems like the installation/compilation docs apply to the
> standalone asio distribution, not the Boost evaluation
> package.

I'm surprised I left that doco in there, but yes a bit more
explanation could have been useful :)

Cheers,
Chris