Re: [boost] asio formal review begins

From: Eugene Alterman (eugalt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-14 18:04:25

"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:dnpe9q$vk6$1_at_sea.gmane.org...

> Let me disagree with this.  There are cases when having multiple threads,
> each working in a synchronous way, is a better approach.  First, it's much
> more intuitive, and easier to debug.  Second, sometimes it's the only way 
> to
> achieve you goal, such as whan you can't (or don't want to) rewrite your
> processing algorithm in asynchronous way.
>
> And when such a case arrives, it would be nice to have a clean socket 
> class,
> without build-in asynchronisity.

Hold on a second...

Where has this perception that asio implements synchronous operations on top 
of asynchronous come from?
>From what I can see in docs and sources this does not seem to be the case.
Notice that demuxer::run() is not called in the tutorial synchronous 
samples.

Synchronous operations are simply  implemented as regular blocking socket 
calls.

I think Chris was misinterpreted when he tried to justify constructing a 
socket with demuxer even if it is only used synchronously.