On 8/11/05, Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/10/05, Jose <jmalv04@gmail.com> wrote:
On top of that, having an acceptor and connector implementation with basic http examples would go a long way towards advancing in the right direction.
What do you consider "the right direction"? Aside from the lack of higher-level examples, what do you think asio is lacking?
From a newbie perspective, the examples are what attracts me to a
"the right direction" would be having one or two net libraries that are widely used by boost users so that they are a de facto standard here and we all benefit from that. I don't like reinventing the wheel ! library. If the example are practical/useful and real world then I want to use it.
If you plan to do this then I would gladly use it and provide feedback. I would wait first for more opinions. I am coming from the newbie boost user perspective that wants to build networking apps easily and doesn't need ACE.
ACE is indeed overkill for *just* networking, but it is battle-tested, feature-rich, fast, and *very* portable. Like it or not, many of the patterns implemented in ACE are must-haves once you have a nice networking library and want to start writing more complex applications (logging, threads, synchronization primitives, message queues, active objects, etc.). Boost provides a number of these, but the sheer breadth, depth, and maturity of ACE makes for a very compelling library.
Yes, but I think many boost users are looking for something simpler (based on the many networking threads written) that leverages other boost libraries as well.