On Aug 16, 2025 2:14 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

I would like to measure the interest in a fork of Asio, proposed as a Boost
library for review.

My interest would be negative.

Currently, Boost.Asio (and the standalone version Asio) is developed and
maintained by Christopher Kohlhoff. Unfortunately he has a well-earned
reputation for being unresponsive to emails and GitHub issues. For example:

https://github.com/chriskohlhoff/asio/pull/904

Have you looked at the PR? It is a build script change for a header only library. The author gives no reason why this is needed or any indication that this works.

The more I read issues and PRs on asio, the more I understand Chris' policy.

I believe that Asio is Boost's most valuable asset, because "the C++
Standard cannot connect to the Internet." Every other language has portable
networking built-in except for C++. Asio is the industry standard and the
gold standard for portable networking, yet it is falling behind due to its
lack of evolution.

You were complaining about too many new features not that long ago on slack. Could you elaborate on what kind of evolution you would like to see.

...

In discussions with our staff engineers, there is a movement to propose a
Boost.Crypt library with cryptographic primitives as an alternative to
OpenSSL, with the goal of modern interfaces which eliminate broad
categories of undefined behavior and usage errors which lead to
vulnerabilities. Yet if Asio cannot adopt support for alternatives to
OpenSSL we cannot evolve.

Why couldn't boost.crypt just implement

It's own crypt-stream type like botan does?

The fork of Asio is just in the idea stage, no work has been done yet, and
it is all open to debate and design. My thinking of how the fork would work
goes like this:

1. C++ Alliance allocates dedicated staff to maintain the fork
2. Stakeholders come together, on the mailing list and through GItHub
issues, to determine what directions we might like to explore or move
towards

That would be design by committee. A lot of stakeholders have input through Chris being part of the industry and they would never participate in an open discussion.

3. Dedicated staff implement the work and provide support for stakeholders

4. Changes in Asio would be adopted on an as-needed basis

And who determines what is needed?

The first order of business would be to go through all of the GitHub issues
in Asio and address them one by one.

What do you think?

Horrible idea. Greenfield one to compete with asio and motivate chris to add them this way.

_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- boost@lists.boost.org
To unsubscribe send an email to boost-leave@lists.boost.org
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/boost@lists.boost.org/message/MOZF2IYK4B6DAEGOTP5IEGNSOQ5BPH75/