Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-29 15:32:20

Stjepan Rajko wrote:

>>> I can see that as being reasonable if the RPC is synchronous, but if
>> Well, not necessarily.
> Are you referring to the possibility that the parameter might not be
> specified as an out parameter, or do you have something else in mind?

No, my general point really is that the whole idea of 'making an RPC appear
like a local function call' is dangerous in my view. There are just too many
differences between remote calls and local calls that the programmer
ultimately needs to know about. For example, how does the rpc endpoint
addressed, what if the endpoint refuses connection, and (specifically related
to synchronous behavior) how long is my process blocked while waiting for a
response that may never come or may be delayed for several seconds because it
takes 3 satellite hops before the result returns? When you make a function
call in a normal program you don't think about any of these factors. When you
make an RPC, you should be thinking about these things. Similarly, network
access is fundamentally asynchronous, so why not program it that way?

> Great thoughts... Along the lines of a thread pool, asio does provide
> the facility that would allow me to give it multiple threads as
> working threads, and it's behavior would I think match the one you
> describe - a received packet would go to an idle thread, which would
> then stay busy until the call was completed and returned. Perhaps I
> can try going this route.

Which facility is that exactly?


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