Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-01 14:11:05
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:48:48 +0200, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]>
> [...]There is not much new in the concept of async_pipe. It is just a
> which supports async I/O. The alternative is to know what limitations
> each target platform has and write something like this:
> #ifdef _WIN32
> ctx.stdout_behavior = bp::behavior::named_pipe::create(
> ctx.stdout_behavior = bp::behavior::pipe::create(
>> Adding another type like async_pipe could be a compromise though?
> If using named pipes on Windows for sync I/O is not slower than using
> anonymous pipes, than there is no need for a separate type.
I think this is one question (where I don't know the answer to though). If
in doubt I'd prefer to use anonymous pipes to avoid potential overhead of
named pipes for synchronous I/O. It wouldn't be probably much anyway but
then this is C++. :-)
Another question is whether it's only us who can't imagine another use
case. Maybe a developer wants to access the named pipe (the name can be
returned through a parameter of the constructor and thus is available). I
haven't thought about it deeply but would be careful to be more
restrictive than we need to be.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk