Re: [boost] reactor versus proactor

From: christopher baus (christopher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-22 16:53:03

> So in summary, I think proactor is the most portable choice
> because it can be efficiently implemented in terms of a reactor,
> but can use native asynchronous I/O when that is more efficient,
> or indeed the only viable option.

I just want to add that I think this is the genius of asio compared to
other frameworks I've used, and why I am excited about it.

For instance libraries like libevent
http://www.monkey.org/%7Eprovos/libevent/ do not perform well on Windows
because they do reactive I/O using Windows's select(), which was glommed
onto the kernel with the BSD TCP/IP code.

With proactor there is a good change of ending up with something that
performs well on Windows and *nix.