From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-30 10:54:37
Scott Woods wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeremy Maitin-Shepard" <jbms_at_[hidden]>
>> Perhaps you can elaborate on how your ideas about a conceptual framework
>> for interpreting a byte stream as more structured data should affect the
>> interface/design of the I/O library.
> Yes. Apologies for loss of context :-)
> The short version;
> 1. Drop "Compression Filter and Misc. Filter" from "Binary Transport Layer"
> 2. Rename "Buffer Filter" as just "Buffering"
> 3. Bundle "Endianness" and "Representation" and call it "Network/Host
> 4. Pull the resulting "Network/Host Representation" out of the presented
> 5. Define other representations such as "ASCII Line", "UTF-8 XML" and
> "Command Line User"
> 6. Allow for representations to be composable, e.g,
> Command Line User<input = keys to basic C++ types,output = basic types to
> UTF 8>
Although I think your ideas for an interpretation framework are
interesting, I think you're applying them at the wrong level. For all
its layering, my library concept is still intended (except for the
formatting) as a low-level stream interface. Your framework might build
on top of it, perhaps even modifying the chains as it goes along.
However, I don't think mutilating the structure and generality of the
interface for the sake of such an interpretation scheme is justified.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk