Hi Don and Michel, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don G" <dongryphon@yahoo.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: [boost] Re: async socket i/o [long]
Hi Michel,
Ok the reason I expose it is for the possibility to write single threaded reactive servers.
I have written such using the library I proposed. The missing ingredient is a function queue mechanism. I posted one to the list a couple weeks ago, but feel that it is not technically a networking thing. Of course, the network layer could be coupled to it in some key places which would make things simpler to use.
[snip long useful text] I agree and nicely written :-) At least that stuff feels better. I have to admit I'm still tangled up with the broader scope. Wondered if this might clarify things; [4] boost --|-------------------serialization-------------------------| [3] boost --|-----------|---------------|- sync file --|-- sync socket -| [2] boost --|-----------|---------------|- async file -|- async socket -|-------------- [1] boost --|- sync file -|- sync socket -|-----------------------------|- async flow - [0] system -|- sync file -|- sync socket -|- async file -|- async socket -|- async flow - Level [0] shows the platform APIs. The repeated names at levels [1] and [2] are the Boost interface to the same names at system level; the boost versions are platform independent. The boost async libraries for file and socket I/O are bumped up to level [2] to highlight the need for a generic "async flow" library. A means of passing control from one dis-joint code fragment to another. Sync file and sync socket appear again on level [3] as that behaviour may be re-implemented over the async level. Serialization is shown at the top for obvious reasons. I suppose for any given platform there may be holes, e.g. an old MacOS may not support async file. According to this diagram at least, sync file and sync socket are optionally implementable as either a layer over the platform API or as something that makes use of the boost async file and async socket. While this might be all a bit pie-in-the-sky, if sync file and sync socket can be implemented over a platform independent interface, the only time you wouldnt do so would be when the platform has no async support? Or for absolute best speed as you described in your text?