Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in a library for actor programming? [preliminary submission]
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-17 17:06:52
On 05/17/14 10:56, Dominik Charousset wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:17:25AM +0200, Bjorn Reese wrote:
>> I have a couple of major concerns with the current submission, and I am
>> going to suggest some substantial changes. I hope that it does not
>> discourage you too much.
>> I am going to suggest that:
>> 1. The library is broken into more fundamental building-blocks (which
>> is what both Boost and the C++ standard is all about.)
>> 2. A more flexible data flow architecture is adopted.
>> 3. More use of existing Boost libraries.
>> I recognize three more fundamental building-blocks in the current
>> submission: active objects, messaging middleware, and data flow. I am
>> not against a higher level actor API, but the fundamentals need to be
>> in place first.
> Thank you for taking your time for this thorough comment. However, I have to
> say I disagree on many levels. First of all: C++ is not about having a low
> level of abstraction. C++ is about having the highest level of abstraction
> possible without sacrificing performance. What you are suggesting is to not
> having an actor library in Boost. You want to have a low-level active object
> library with low-level networking primitives.
The way I read Bjorn's statement:
I am not against a higher level actor API, but the fundamentals
need to be in place first.
is that Bjorn's not objecting to a high level of abstraction; however,
he wants a lower level first on which to build the higher level. IOW,
he's not saying, as you suggest:
to not having an actor library in Boost
At least that's the way I read his post, FWIW.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk