From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-29 17:30:41
On Jun 29, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Is there a consideration of using asio to implement the actual MPI
> standard, so that the candidate Boost.MPI will also implement the MPI
> standard in case there aren't any available MPI implementations for
> the platform? I'm thinking if asio will work on many different
> platforms (maybe even embedded devices), then maybe Boost.MPI can have
> a canned MPI implementation that comes along with it?
I, personally, am not at all interested in implementing the MPI
standard. There are high-quality, high-performance, portable
implementations available already (<shameless plug>Open MPI, for
instance</shameless plug>). Building MPI on top of asio would require
a *huge* investment, and we would not have a chance at beating
existing MPI implementations in either portability or performance.
No, it's better that we just provide the best C++ interface we can to
the C library.
That said, we can still try to *influence* MPI implementations,
especially where there is a poor match between what C++ needs and
what the C MPI bindings provide. For instance, MPI is very poor at
receiving messages of unknown length. We could improve our
implementation of the C++ bindings significantly if that issue could
be addressed at a lower level.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk