From: Eugene Alterman (eugalt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-20 00:39:17
"Peter Petrov" <ppetrov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
>> That should not be difficult to achieve with derivation or some sort of
>> policy. Looks like async_socket might be derived from sync_socket (or
>> contain it).
> This was also my thought - public derivation. I.e., the current socket
> class is refactored into two classes - base (sync_socket) and and
> derived (async_socket). The sync_socket class won't know anyhing about
> demuxers (it doesn't need to).
Except that demuxer is currently also a service repository.
And wouldn't the service repository if decoupled from a demuxer be a
legitimate candidate for a singleton?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk