El 16/08/2025 a las 5:06, Vinnie Falco via Boost escribió:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 5:20 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
If understand the proposal correctly, if the fork passes the review, then we would have 2 networking libraries inside Boost (Boost.Asio + Boost.ForkedAsio)?
Yes, exactly. The API of ForkedAsio would closely follow Boost.Asio, and it would pick up changes from Asio.
Thanks
We have previous experience of having newer versions of a library (Coroutine2, Hash2, Lambda2, Signals2, Variant2), but I think in many of them the API was changed o support newer features or standards. They are in practice, greenfield re-implementations and/or variations. On the other hand, having a lot of newer and shinier features would make Boost.Asio2 more attractive to Boost but it would make tracking the original library increasingly difficult. If we think we can't do it better than Chris, then I don't know what could be the correct path forward. Are networking programmers comfortable with the Asio API or we would like to change the API to make use of newer C++ features? I've read comments from some programmers disliking the Asio interface (the old one and also the interaction with C++ coroutines) but I haven't seen a mature, better alternative yet (and exploring a new API is out of you proposed Boost.ForkedAsio proposal). Best, Ion