Boost logo

Boost :

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-15 21:16:23

"Christopher Kohlhoff" <chris_at_[hidden]> wrote

> With asio, I was hoping to make asynchronous operations as
> natural and easy to use as possible, compared to their
> synchronous counterparts.

I am afraid this might be impossible :-( People usually make/think about
things sequentially.

"1 2 3 4" is much more intuitive than "1 2(call 3 when finished(and 3 will
schedule 4).

> > I just want to point out that async reading and writing could
> > be a function of an async I/O demuxer and not the socket
> > itself. The socket could be passed to the demuxer and not
> > vice versa.
> The above design is something I can fundamentally disagree with
> ;) That sort of design, in my opinion, relegates asynchronous
> operations to "second class citizens".

Why should a read/write operation necessarily be a member function? Isn't
IO just moving bytes from one location to another where neither source nor
destination is primary?

Consider getline() ftom <string> or streaming operations. All of them are
namespace-level functions. There is nothing wrong with having
namespace-level functions in C++. We are not in Java... We don't have to
be too object-oriented :-)


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