"Eugene Alterman" <eugalt@verizon.net> wrote
"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dnq894$11t$1@sea.gmane.org...
All I was trying to say is that, as a potential client of the library (everybody does some networking now and then), I tried to map it to one of the tasks I had in the past. I happen to have solved that task by using synchronous operations + multiple threads (maybe because it is the most intuitive way for a not very experienced network programmer, which I am, but I still doubt very much that asynchronous approach would have been better).
If you are using socket API or a C++ library that just provides simple wrapper classes for socket API a thread per conection approach is of course the most intuitive. The problem is that it does not scale well.
So, when I am evaluating a "Networking Library", and see that it clearly consideres one approach to networking inferior to the other one, and I think they both are equaly important, that means that I am in fundamental disagreement with the library author on the subject, and makes me wonder whether this is the networking library I would like to see in Boost.
One approach is inferior to the other and they are both important (but not equally) :-)
Is it a proven fact, or just your opinion? :-) Regards, Arkadiy