"Hugo Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > At this stage we need to decide what would be the scope of an > initial submission. Is the basic socket design useful in itself, > or would the proactor and reactor patterns be required for the > library to have any meaning? Is the level 1 design (without > reactor/proactor classes) sufficient for client usage?
I can only speak for myself. Basically, all I need is a very simple mechanism to stream objects from one process to another. It seemed to me that using the overloaded >> and << operators would be a good place to start as I can serialize the objects to a file (through ostream) and then unserialize them. (These are very simple objects...so the overhead of using formatted I/O doesn't worry me.) Once I had that going, then all I would need is a sockets library that could handle streams over top of them, so I went looking around and, now I'm here. So, from my perspective, a very simple boring sender and listener would be perfect. As an aside, once I would have all of this working, I would start wanting to replace the << and >> ostream operators with something that would produce and consume a stream containing XML data (so that I could cross communicate with Java processes). That's the ultimate destination for me. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
