On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 1:15 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I am not reviewing Capy/Corosio as replacements for ASIO, but as libraries in their own right. Saying that ASIO does it that way is not a rationale, and referencing ASIO is not an explanation.
This message is for the review manager and everyone else. So that we don't waste everyone's time (including mine), Capy and Corosio are a replacement for Boost.Asio. That is the stated intent. References to Asio's execution model are explaining what we kept, what we changed, and why. They are separate because not everyone needs sockets. Capy provides the coroutine execution model, and byte-oriented streams. Business logic that operates on streams: HTTP parsing, protocol state machines, serialization, can be expressed without Corosio's platform-specific I/O. Capy is the part you can use everywhere, including environments where sockets don't exist. Corosio adds the platform layer: sockets, timers, reactors. A review that evaluates only Capy, declines to examine Corosio, and finds it wanting is not engaging with what was submitted. I wouldn't call such a review an abomination. I would call it a misunderstanding. I realize that the two-library physical division is not what folks are used to, and I am sure that the Boost community is smart enough to navigate this novelty as presented. Best