On 01.09.2010 2:10, Boris Schaeling wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:13:22 +0200, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]As a user of the library, I'm not interested which pipes are used for I/O - anonymous or named. IMO it is better to provide exactly one stream behavior which supports both sync and async I/O. On windows it would be implemented with named pipe and UuidCreateSequential (as it "tends to be slightly faster than the UuidCreate" [1]). On POSIX it would be implemented with anonymous pipe.
I could add another type (asnyc_pipe?) which is set to the minimum required pipe type on a platform? The advantage of pipe and named_pipe is though that many developers know them and don't need to read first what eg. an async_pipe is. As this is a problem only for Windows developers I'm not sure either why developers on other platforms should learn new concepts.
There is not much new in the concept of async_pipe. It is just a pipe which supports async I/O. The alternative is to know what limitations each target platform has and write something like this: #ifdef _WIN32 ctx.stdout_behavior = bp::behavior::named_pipe::create( bp::behavior::pipe::output_stream); #else ctx.stdout_behavior = bp::behavior::pipe::create( bp::behavior::pipe::output_stream); #endif
Adding another type like async_pipe could be a compromise though?
If using named pipes on Windows for sync I/O is not slower than using anonymous pipes, than there is no need for a separate type.