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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk