On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Normally I'd agree, but I guess I have this vision that the 2nd tier we're talking about would be a fully-usable, platform-independent API for those developers who wish to code at a lower level, and then the 3rd tier would be a simpler -- but with a more advanced design -- model. So they both need designing, with different purposes. Tier 2 needs to be powerful enough that anything may be coded using it, including new network protocols. Tier 3 needs to be suitable for all but the most advanced purposes, gaining in design what it gives up in power.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 highest level first, and then ask: what lower level components do we need to get here?
I lean this way because I spend so much of my time doing very low-level things, and C/C++ is the only language that allows me the flexibility to do what I want. The thought of designing a boost library that makes the same sacrifices that Java made is a real downer. I see the need for a good OO design, but I'd also like raw access to low-level structures in a platform-independent manner. Which is why I don't simply suggest that people like me use Sockets. They don't exist on all platforms.
-- Brian
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
