On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 15:57, Hugo Duncan wrote: > > I have attached the > > implementation of file_descriptor_set I have been using in my code > > recently. > > Is there really any difference except in the name? The use of friend is > for select is certainly worth thinking about.
Nope, just thought it might clear up what the role of update_width (recalc_max) would be. > I'll change the name to file_descriptor_set. The reason I had left it > as socket_set was that I was not sure how to mix SOCKET and files > on windows - but htat looks to be easy from your code.... Ah, I should have pointed out that I have only used file_descriptor_set on sockets. I don't know if will work with win32 files. Also Hu Xinwei pointed out that fd_set should probably be an implementation detail. Check out this for instance... http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/nio-improve.html Can we stick with SocketSetConcept and hide the fd_set completely. I like the idea of a boost event system that would allow waiting on several types of events in a portable way. But I don't know if it is feasible. See.. http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1448661 If we can't have something like that then separating sockets and files makes sense. Perhaps though we could add a socket_event_source_set (or nicer name) that would work as I described event_source_set but would only support socket_read_event_source, socket_write_event_source and socket_except_event_source. It could be implemented using three socket_sets and select. -- Hamish Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
