Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in Remote Procedure Call Library?
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-11 03:49:20
Daniel Larimer wrote:
> An update on where I am. I have successfully added support for overloaded
> member functions and re-factored the code based upon some feedback given
> here and in the process have adopted the boost/stl naming conventions.
> I have been thinking about the nature of the library and what I would call
> it and have concluded the following.
> 1) The "core library" should be free of any network code or dependency on
> boost::asio because networking is only one way to "invoke a method" on an
> object outside of your memory space (or even inside your memory space).
I agree, although there are quite a few Boost Libraries that could
potentially be used for transport purposes,
* Boost.Asio (event loop, TCP/IP, unix domain sockets)
* Boost.Interprocess (shared memory stuff)
* Boost.Function / Boost.Thread (local stuff)
* Boost.MPI (all of the above :-))
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk