From: Roland (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 15:39:25
(Michael Glassford <glassfordm_at_[hidden]>) wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > I'm not sure that much if anything would need to be done to provide
> > support for IO multiplexing in Boost.
...
> That, of course, would be the best solution. Have you looked at the
> code in the orignal post to see if such a solution would solve his
> problem?
>
...
> > I guess the question
> > becomes, is there a need for such an IO library in Boost? The
> nature
> > of the project would demand a good bit of custom code for each
> > platform, which isn't typical of Boost components.
I have been off for a few days now, and I like to see that I have arrived
at the very same conclusions than you.
1) I believe now that most likely everything can be done with boost.thread as is (question
still is performance)
2) I used an approach as 1 thread / WFMO instead beeing able to directly
wait on condvars _and_ IO simulateneously. (Altough this approach isn't
easily portable, as it contains a lot of platform dependencies. Also this
approach does not scale very well for the multiplexing case since
WMFO/select scenarios are limited in the number of waitable things.
This is where IO completion should enter the scene.)
3) I agree that the real question should be whether there should be a such an IO
library in boost. Personally I would vote for such a thing, perhaps based on
already existing "C" async_io libs, much like the pthreads lib.
If anyone is interseted I could try to post my files, but I am not sure where I
should post them since they are more a bit of example appliaction code
than library code. Would the boost files area be adequate?
Roland