> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Hugo Duncan > Gesendet: Samstag, 23. November 2002 20:47 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: [boost] Re: AW: Sockets > > > On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:13:14 +0100, Boris Sch�ling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I read your library requirements. > Thanks. > > > I don't agree that a socket library should wrap rather than invent. > > Agreed that the C++ library should leverage the power of C++, > but we could do this while remaining in some way familiar. The > intent is to provide a clean C++ interface. > > Certainly at a higher level some form of smart address resolution > should be provided, but I don't think that obviates the need for > seperate address classes for seperate protocols, for those people > who do not want to pay for functionality that they do not need.
Okay, agreed. As far as I remember former discussions in this list some people supported a select()/poll()/somehow centralized interface others favoured independent socket classes. What about two different socket libraries? One simple select()/poll() based library comparable to ACE following the Reactor pattern and one more complex library with independent classes? A C++-socket library following the Reactor pattern would be much easier to use than select() or poll() in C. Two socket libraries would be comparable to Java where the java.net and java.nio packages provide different approaches to connect to the network. Boris _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
