On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:39:50 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote
Clearly this would be interesting to a lot of people.
Since you've already written working code and presumably dealt with lots of practical issue of design and implementation, maybe it would be most helpful if you summarize your proposal in the form of a library documentation. This would make it much easier to discuss such a thing. This would be helpful because lots of people are
I agree -- this post has already received several responses indicating interest.
going to see different applications for this and will have a lot to say.
Someone is going to want to to look like threads Someone is going to want it to control asyncronous processes on networked machines Someone is going to twant to pass data via [filtered] streams Someone else is going to feel that's too inefficient etc. etc.
Although this is looking simple right now. Its a big topic. Hang on to your hat.
While I agree that this will likely happen, I, for one, will argue for simplicity. We won't get all these features and we don't need them. A blocking implementation can be trivially wrapped with threads -- write that as an example it doesn't need to be a feature of the library. The 'inefficient folks' should abandon C++ and go back to C. We don't have an async i/o design for standard streams and I don't think we should try to solve that with this library -- and anyone that complains about this should come forth with a proposal as far as I'm concerned.... Jeff