On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 06:11:59PM -0500, Jason House wrote:
Once I heard there was a generic socket library in development, I thought I'd add
a quick feature request. I would like to see the ability to have multiple
streams through the same socket.
This boils down to providing two
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:17:45 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
darmstadt.de wrote:
How about BEEP ?
It's not only P2P protocol, but also refactoring of some protocols.
#beepcore.org
http://www.beepcore.org/
#XML Watch: Bird's-eye BEEP
Part 1 of an introduction to the Blocks
I don't know exactly what you mean by non-trivial sever and what you
get from ACE/expect not to get from Boost.Socket that a non-trivial
server requires?
Depends on the server, CDR formatting, thread-safe queues come to mind.
There are probably a few threading things as well. Of course all
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Garland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I agree that multiplexing has to be in the design thoughts and
ultimately part of boost, but I worry it will be too much
to deliver, test, and review in the first pass. And,
I see no way I would use Boost.Socket for
[...]
How about borrowing ideas from ACE, but implementing them in
modern C++? Or has that been discussed already? Or is the ACE
framework too obsolete-C++ to be a useful design?
We probably should at least consider ACE ideas. But I guess this would
require several of us to dig
...various comments about ACE from various authors
[...]
How about borrowing ideas from ACE, but implementing them in
modern C++? Or has that been discussed already? Or is the ACE
framework too obsolete-C++ to be a useful design?
We probably should at least consider ACE ideas.
Just another lurker view: maybe boost can lead by following not too far
out in front.
The linux people seem to be well on their way to providing SCTP support at
the kernel level. The home page for the project is at
http://lksctp.sourceforge.net/. Searching MSFT online and privatenews
yielded
On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 08:38 AM, Jeff Garland wrote:
So in summary, I think we should focus the Boost.Socket effort
on what is currently described as 'level 1 - OS platform layer'
and 'level 2 - basic connectivity layer' leaving multiplexing
for later. I'm sure this will be
Brian Gray wrote:
At the very end of it, network programmers should be using a
callback-driven interface and not have to worry about multiplexing at
all, but I agree that for now a third layer should be deferred until
the basic groundwork has been laid out.
Sometimes it pays to design the
On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Brian Gray wrote:
At the very end of it, network programmers should be using a
callback-driven interface and not have to worry about multiplexing at
all, but I agree that for now a third layer should be deferred until
the basic
On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 08:38 AM, Jeff Garland wrote:
So in summary, I think we should focus the Boost.Socket effort
on what is currently described as 'level 1 - OS platform layer'
and 'level 2 - basic connectivity layer' leaving multiplexing
for later. I'm sure this will be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason House
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [boost] Re: Sockets - what's the latest?
I guess that my original commentary could be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [boost] Re: Sockets - what's the latest?
[...]
How about borrowing ideas from ACE, but implementing them in
Boris Schäling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
How about borrowing ideas from ACE, but implementing them in
modern C++? Or has that been discussed already? Or is the ACE
framework too obsolete-C++ to be a useful design?
We probably should at least consider ACE ideas. But I guess this
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 03:11 PM, Jason House wrote:
Once I heard there was a generic socket library in development, I
thought I'd add
a quick feature request. I would like to see the ability to have
multiple
streams through the same socket.
This is pseudo-doable over TCP, by
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 10:30, Markus Schöpflin wrote:
And I think it would be really important to provide a clean
interaction model between the socket library and the thread library
and a clean solution to the problems that keep on coming up again and
again when doing socket programming.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Markus Schöpflin
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [boost] Re: Sockets
[...]
- How do you wait for more than just socket events? Thread conditions,
window
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:09:29PM +, Hugo Duncan wrote:
Pavol,
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
Jeff,
Thanks. As regards times, we should definitely be using the time_duration
from boost date_time!
Yes, but we'll need to do something with the core. If you just used
posix_time::time_duration out of the box it is a bit of a heavy
dependency for the need.
Would you have any code
19 matches
Mail list logo
