Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-01 18:33:27

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:21:36 +0200, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]>  
wrote:

> On 01.09.2010 23:20, Boris Schaeling wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Looking at your proposed stream class I'd call it now a factory class.
>> This makes sense to me and is even easier to explain (as many developers
>> should be familiar with that pattern). The factory method could be
>> called in create_child() making it possible to reuse contexts.
>
> Yep.
>
>> But why did you add set_fileno()? Do we need this method if we have
>> create_parent_and_child_end() already? The example looks like as if it's
>> only required by inherit and thus shouldn't be added to stream really?
>
> Probably. There is one more problem that worries me:
>
> ctx.stdin_behavior =
> bp::behavior::pipe::create(bp::behavior::pipe::input_stream);
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is too easy to write output_stream here, and in 99% of cases
> its value is input_stream.

At some point I thought of replacing get_child_end() and get_parent_end()  
with get_read_end() and get_write_end(). While stdin/stdout/stderr could  
then pick the right methods for a pipe automatically what would be the  
read and write end of the stream behaviors inherit or close? That's why I  
left it as it is. Any other ideas?

Boris