Re: Boost.Asio as "thread-pool": How to apply back-pressure?

From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-10 09:19:18

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 04:27, Cristian Morales Vega via Boost-users <
boost-users_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> What does Chris think about this?

Chris has been using Asio in production code for something like 15 years.
It processes billions of transactions per day in financial exchanges around
the world.

It is demonstrably excellent at what it was designed to do, which is to
process a large number of messages while fairly sharing communications
resources across all connections.

>From my point of view the meddling by WG21 is most unwelcome as it serves
to destabilise the interface of Asio, which is confusing for users of Asio
and Beast, and also implementers of dependent libraries - who I regularly
coach. The jumps from boost 1.69 to 1.70 (executors TS) and from 1.73 to
1.74 (unified executors) have been particularly problematic.

As far as I am able to tell from attending some of the meetings, the
motivation for changes amongst certain actors in WG21 seems to me to be
driven by either malice or willful ignorance of the impact on the user
community.

Of course like many boost libraries, it should already have been
standardised without the butchering.

As things stand, it seems to me that the whole process of
standardising networking is so infected with self interest and
externalisation of costs, that the enterprise is probably doomed. No doubt
this is intended by a small cadre of participants.

> He is arguably been open to changes
> to Networking TS. Why don't you aim directly for such a "Networking
> v2", maybe for C++26 (by now I don't mind waiting another 3 years),
> and skip "Networking V1"?
> I am not going to pretend to get the details, but I understand there
> are a lot of more or less related moving parts (executors, io_uring,
> GCD, continuations...). So if it gets delayed so be it, we already
> have ASIO for the time being. But in 2021 work on trying to get
> something in C++23 with the idea of deprecating it on C++26 sounds...
> strange.
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>

-- 
Richard Hodges
hodges.r_at_[hidden]
office: [phone]
home: [phone]
mobile: [phone]