From: Ben Artin (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-14 21:07:06
In article <dnqfmd$l6e$1_at_[hidden]>,
"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "Eugene Alterman" <eugalt_at_[hidden]> wrote
> > There is nothing special about synchronous operations, and they have
> > been implemented in similar ways in dozens of networking libraries.
> See, I don't care much about other libraries -- I am not going to use them.
> But if this one becomes part of Boost, I may start using it, and so I would
> like it to have what I need, with a clean interface, and implemented in a
> clean way.
IMO this is completely beside the point. This is not the boost networking
library, it's the boost async IO library, and as such whether it supports sync
IO or not is completely irrelevant.
There are really two possibilities here:
1) You may some day use an async IO library, in which case this library will be
useful to you and you should review it for its merit with regards to its stated
design intent or
2) You will never use an async IO library, in which case this library will never
be useful to you, and you should still review it for its merit with regards to
its stated design intent, while acknowledging that it does not necessarily fit
your problem domain.
However, right now you seem to saying that you are not interested in async IO,
and that this library, whose stated intent is to provide async IO, is therefore
unacceptable to you.
You have a nail. This library is not a hammer.
IMO, if you want a clean synchronous IO API, you should not be looking for it in
an async IO library.
-- I changed my name: <http://periodic-kingdom.org/People/NameChange.php>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk