Boost logo

Boost :

From: simon meiklejohn (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-20 00:56:06

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Alterman" <eugalt_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] singleton asio::demuxer as default?
(was:asioformalreview begins)

> "Peter Petrov" <ppetrov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:do81b5$4ir$
>> 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?

Do the current synchronous methods make use of the demuxer?
If not, then what about a separate constructor with no demuxer that
marks the socket as for synch use only. Then throw if asynch methods
are touched.

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