Boost logo

Boost :

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-14 19:29:36

"Eugene Alterman" <eugalt_at_[hidden]> wrote

> "Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:dnq894$11t$
> > All I was trying to say is that, as a potential client of the library
> > (everybody does some networking now and then), I tried to map it to one
> > the tasks I had in the past. I happen to have solved that task by using
> > synchronous operations + multiple threads (maybe because it is the most
> > intuitive way for a not very experienced network programmer, which I am,
> > but
> > I still doubt very much that asynchronous approach would have been
> > better).
> If you are using socket API or a C++ library that just provides simple
> wrapper classes for socket API a thread per conection approach is of
> the most intuitive. The problem is that it does not scale well.
> > So, when I am evaluating a "Networking Library", and see that it clearly
> > consideres one approach to networking inferior to the other one, and I
> > think
> > they both are equaly important, that means that I am in fundamental
> > disagreement with the library author on the subject, and makes me wonder
> > whether this is the networking library I would like to see in Boost.
> One approach is inferior to the other and they are both important (but not
> equally) :-)

Is it a proven fact, or just your opinion? :-)


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at