Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-29 18:20:36

Rene Rivera wrote:
> From my own experience (I have my own RMI/RPC framework), I can say
> that I agree with Peter.

Actually I didn't think Peter and I were disagreeing :-)

> I have both sync and async calls and both are
> beneficial. It is usually a matter of context which one you use. For
> example I use sync calls during the connection process since in that
> context nothing else makes much sense.

Which is reasonable assuming 1) you make a connection up front independent of
the actual RMI/RPC, 2) you don't have a high latency network (eg: over a
satellite hop or two), 3) you control the machines used by both client and
server, etc, etc. Of course, you probably don't wait forever for a connection
to complete, either, so I assume there's at least a built-in timeout...maybe
even a disconnect/reconnect strategy.

> Almost everywhere else I use async calls.

Good choice ;-)

Really I think there's no disagreement here. I don't have a problem with an
RPC option that includes sync behavior. I just don't want Stjepan to go down
the path of building and all sync RPC solution b/c I don't think that's going
to fly.


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