Re: [Boost-Users] Re: Boost Sockets

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-16 08:58:50

[Beman]
> Those are worthwhile questions.
>
> When a new library first comes up for discussion on Boost, it is very
> helpful if someone says "such-and-such an existing library already does a
> good job with that" or maybe "such-and-such an existing library already
> does that, but has the follow problems...".

ACE Sockets exists but has the following problems.... er.. how long have you
got? :-)
(Ok, I'm exaggerating - but read on....)

> My sense with ACE is that while Boost developers know it exists, they
> usually aren't regular ACE users, and so have trouble judging the pros and
> cons.

We tried and tried and tried to use ACE in out project - but all we wanted
from it was the sockets library. Unfortunately ACE doesn't work this way. If
you start using a bit of ACE you pretty much have to use all of it. It's
similar to, say, MFC. It's a framework within which you have to do things
its way. And the style is very "basic" (in order to be as portable as
possible).
In the end we looked around for something else and opted for a library that,
although not as complete as ACE, didn't make us pay for the rest of it!

I see this as a great strength of boost: 99% of the time You Only Pay For
What You Use!
That's why I would dearly love to see a sockets library in boost (if my
current workload clears up soon I may even be able to contribute to its
development).
I have not been able to find a usable sockets library that fulfills the
YOPFWYU mantra yet. I appreciate that there are problems with this as a
comprehensive sockets library is an synergy of so many platform dependant
entities. However I think if an approach similar to that use by
boost.threads was taken then it is an achievable goal.
As I mentioned in my previous mail, there is a higher level point where a
sockets library could meet with the threads library to provide
implementations of pattern level entities - in a manner similar to ACE - but
without the overhead of paying for a framework (and with the benefit of more
modern C++ style and techniques).

> Have you used the ACE sockets and related facilities in real code?  What
> was your experience?

Like I said, we tried!
That said, we are using ACE elsewhere - as the foundation for the TAO
implementation of CORBA. However we have fully encapsulated that and
isolated it from everything else through strict compile time and run time
boundaries - and we still regularly have problems with it.

> Does the ACE TCP/IP stuff mix well with other libraries?

No, no, no no! :-)

> Are there a lot of dependencies between the ACE TCP/IP stuff and other ACE
> code?

Yes!

Have I made my position clear :-)

[)o
IhIL..