Re: [boost] asio formal review begins

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-14 17:06:08

Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:

> My problem with the current approach is that synchronous operations
> seems to be viewed as second-class citizens.  I understand that this
> is caused by the fact that asio is about the asynchronous IO.  But
> asio is presented as the "best C++ networking library around", and in
> networking both synchronous and asynchronous approaches are used, and
> neither is superior for all possible cases.
>
> Consider "Patterns for concurrent and networked objecs" by D.
> Schmidt, at al.  Quite a few patterns described there are related to the
> synchronous processing.
>
> I think a little refactoring might lead to a better solution than
> trying to add synchronous operations on top of existing asio.

I think that we should be careful not to break something that has been 
proven to work well because a little refactoring "might" lead to a better 
solution (unless the author agrees, of course.)

The argument that asio is presented as "the best networking C++ library 
around" is not enough of an excuse.