Michel André wrote:
[...] Another slight mishap is that the things you call acceptor and connector arent acceptors and connectors in the sense of the original pattern (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/Acc-Con.pdf or POSA 2) as I interpret it.
I read the 17 pages for a better understanding. And I think you are right that we use different definitions. In the paper acceptor and connector are factories while in the class hierarchy at http://www.highscore.de/boost/net/basic.png they are an endpoint of a communication link. While I understand that the acceptor-connector pattern makes sense I think we should use it in a level > 0. If you look at the connector for example (in the acceptor-connector pattern) it is used to establish a connection and then passes over the connection to a service handler to do the processing. If level 0 should be similar to Berkeley sockets (and as far as I understand this is one goal of level 0) I don't know why the connector shouldn't be able to do the processing after the connection is established. In this level processing basically means calling read() and write(). A service handler in the acceptor-connector pattern is probably something bigger than a socket? Using the acceptor-connector pattern in level 0 would work but would also make the design more complicated as it should be to convince network programmers to switch over to the C++ network library. Boris