From: Dr. Franz Fehringer (fehrin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-09 03:55:17
Perhaps this could be reflected on the boost main page?
btw is there a chance that asio will be in 1.35?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: [boost] asio review results -- asio accepted
> All -
> I'm pleased to announce that asio has been accepted into Boost. As
> usual with a Boost review, the asio review generated plenty of
> discussion, issues, and controversy. Comments ranged from high praise,
> including success stories of projects in production, to serious design
> concerns and issues. On balance, in my judgment, asio provides a
> generally solid library that is ready for inclusion into the Boost
> library -- providing key functionality in an area that developers have a
> strong need.
> Of course, like anything else, asio is not perfect -- a number of key
> issues were uncovered during the review. In terms of required changes
> I'm only going to cite a few:
> - Fixes to dynamic memory allocation issues
> - Interface changes to support ipv4 and ipv6 seamlessly at runtime
> - Improvements to support strongly typed socket interfaces
> Chris has communicated a couple possible solutions to the memory
> allocation issue and I'll ask that the interface and other changes for
> this issue continue to be discussed on the Boost list so consensus can
> be achieved on the best resolution.
> Other key improvements that should be explored as future enhancements
> - Possible removal of some of the c-style interfaces
> - Exploration of higher level iostream integrations
> - Performance improvements
> - Improved documentation (wouldn't be Boost w/o this one)
> Chris has a much longer list of changes garnered from the review and is
> well on his way to addressing many of them.
> Note that there were several threads and discussions about performance,
> which is particularly critical for the domain covered by asio. One of
> the performance issues is the dynamic memory allocation issue cited
> above. In general, the reviewers have extremely high expectations here.
> However, after reviewing the discussion and library it's my belief that
> many developers will find asio performance sufficient to build
> significant projects with only the memory allocation changes. I expect
> Chris will be able to address some of the other performance issues cited
> by reviewers in asio over time.
> Once again I'll apologize to the Boost community for the delay in the
> review results. The delay was entirely due to my own personal
> scheduling issues and should not reflect on asio in any way. Thanks
> again to all the reviewers for their effort and especially to Chris for
> his tremendous effort in bringing asio to Boost!
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk