From: Dave Moore (jdmoore99_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-14 06:43:04
> > Also, your library provides some socket API, and therefore, if
> > it is accepted, I don't expect any other socket class in Boost
> > in the nearest future, which means I would expect your classes
> > to nicely wrap all of sockets, not only acynchronos ones.
> I've been thinking about these issues since your email. My
> feeling is that a use case doesn't have to become very
> complicated for the asynchronous operations to be beneficial.
> But where a developer's needs are simple enough, I suspect
> that's also when they are going to want to use an
> iostreams-based interface. Since iostreams basically enforce
> synchronous operation, this seems like a sensible place to hide
> the demuxer and asynchronicity away.
I strongly, strongly agree. You can build a robust synchronous
implementation, iostream based or not, on top of an asynchronous
foundantion. The reverse is difficult and tends to be non-scalable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk