On 12/12/05, Cory Nelson <phrosty@gmail.com> wrote:
For the API, one thing that struck me is the almost C-style error
handling. I believe the .NET way is better. It provides a point
the developer must call to get the result of the operation, and that
On 12/12/05, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote: that the sockets can throw any exceptions that would normally be thrown in sync operations.
[snip]
Could you elaborate a little more about what you mean with C-style error handling and the error handling you prefer (.NET) ?
In the current asio implementation, a handler looks like this:
void on_recv(const asio::error &err, size_t len) { if(!err) { ... } else { ... } }
In .NET, a handler looks like this:
void on_recv(IAsyncResult res) { int len; try { len=sock.EndRecv(res); } catch(SocketException ex) { ...; return; }
... }
IMHO, I would not accept an implementation that forces exception handling onto the user. Consider a common use case for this library: high performance, internet facing servers. In this .NET style example, an exception would be thrown when the peer drops connection while the application is waiting for data, increasing the overhead of the error case. An attacker attempting a DoS on the server looks for cases which increase the response time. In this example the attacker could flood the server with broken connections forcing a significant amount of CPU time to be spent in exception handling. Exceptions might be appropriate for higher level services, but not a requirement for the core dispatcher.