> From: Hugo Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:12:36 +0100, Pavol Droba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there an interest to support also non-TCP/IP based protocols like > > IRDA/TP or raw sockets? > > I think this should be feasable, though I know nothing of IRDA/TP. > > Is it just a case of using the appropriate sockaddr_?? class > and protocol constants? Or are there any requirements on the > communciation once connection is established?
Hugo, I think it is important to consider that file (including/especially device/special file eg. pipes) I/O should fit into the same framework. I don't see much of a problem (beyond the name "socket") with this if I understand the proposed architecture, which looks very similar to both ACE and a lighter weight and imho easier to use ACE "replacement" we developed at work. The acceptor/connector and address classes deal with the peculiarities of creating/opening a socket. Once you have a read/write "socket" you have a *nix file descriptor for most practical purposes. If this model can be implemented portably the ability to use at least some special "files" may also deal with some of the other issues being discussed such as inter-thread/process communication when using the async model (of course one way to do this might be to use unix domain sockets where supported). Regards Darryl Green _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
