I'm pointing at your annoucement post last year http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/09/71923.php
The inspiration for asio was the work of Alex Libman in developing a "portable Proactor framework" for ACE (see http://www.terabit.com.au). This is a Proactor that can use select or a similar synchronous event demultiplexer if no more appropriate OS mechanism is available.
and the proactor white papers which I found very useful in understanding how all fits together http://www.terabit.com.au/articles.php Given the rationale in the papers I understand that your library provides a multiplatform async network io solution (emulating async behaviour in Linux via select-like mechanisms) but that it will be able to include true async network aio_ calls when these are available. My questions are: 1) Is this a solution that will incorporate async disk io in the future by wrapping the POSIX aio_ interface or just network focused ? (i.e. boost::net vs boost::aio) 2) Shouldn't the host resolver interface wrap the system getaddrinfo calls so that it is IP6 ready as well ( should IP6 be a priority or just making the sure the design is able to accommodate it easily when necessary ?) In Linux, shouldn't the host resolver wrap the native async getaddrinfo_a for best performance ? 3) How can the library tap into the ideas/experience of the other library users ? E.g. the nanostream library has some work that might be complementary. 4) HTTP: I asked for this just for the examples understanding that a fully fleshed out library would be separate and probably tie more with a web applications library, a wide field in itself. The nanostreamer class also has initial work here that would be nice if it could somewhat be coordinated Finally, it would be nice if in addition to your TODO list you can provide some document that explains the current design decisions (e.g. how you use threads,,..) beyond what is in the proactor pattern Thanks Jose On 8/15/05, Christopher Kohlhoff <chris@kohlhoff.com> wrote:
--- Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:
Peter Petrov wrote:
Caleb Epstein wrote:
Its a very nice library. I commend you on the design and implementation. Personally, I think this should be proposed as a Boost.Networking library more or less as-is.
I second that opinion. Asio has really impressed me - in fact I'm abandoning ACE in favor of it.
I also approve, and I'm about to start using it to replace my hand written networking code.
Wow! Given the encouraging response both on and off list, I guess I'd like to kick things off in turning asio into a serious proposal for Boost. I'll post a message in a day or two outlining some of the areas where I believe it needs refinement and where it could benefit from others' expertise.
Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost