Christopher Kohlhoff wrote:
While I certainly intend it to be a comprehensive io library eventually, at the moment it only does networking :)
Yes -- so ultimately there is a question about focus in the proposal -- networking or io.
As such, there are some issues not currently addressed by the library that I can see the committee being worried about.
I presume you are at least partially referring to iostreams integration? Wrt iostreams support we should probably kick off some discussion asap on exactly what form that should take. I'll start a new thread for it.
Yes that's it -- I'll answer that thread in a bit.
In any case, I can see Chris needing a helping hand to get this done in time -- presuming that he is still able to pursue this deadline.
That's the plan.
Glad to hear it :-)
We should probably organize a group of interested folks to help this along given the scope and importance of the job.
This is how I see things proceeding:
- I need to get the next version with the breaking interface changes from the review out the door.
- A brief discussion on what features are in or out of a proposal (although I have a fair idea of this already), based on the new version.
- I knock together a rough draft proposal.
- With interested parties, the proposal goes through a process of iterative modification and review.
I am putting as much as possible of my spare time (such as it is) towards getting this next version out. I'm wary of putting a date on it, but there are only a couple of major changes left on my to-do list.
Sounds good. I am worried that even with the iostream integration the proposal won't have Doug's one-line wget implementation, but we'll see. Jeff