Zack Weinberg <za...@panix.com> writes: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Timothy Brownawell<tbrow...@prjek.net> > wrote: >>> > So the question is, what needs to be done on the asio branch? And how >>> > can we mitigate the problems people have with linking against boost? >>> >>> Do we have a list of such problems? Maybe we can just assume boost got >>> better :). >> >> The two that come to mind are >> * different (and therefore annoying) build system >> * version skew wrt libstdc++, eg boost and monotone have >> different ideas of what exactly an std::string looks like > > I suppose I should pop back in at this point, since I started the asio > branch, and admit that I got stuck.
Can you add an entry in the mtn wiki BranchStatuses page (http://www.monotone.ca/wiki/BranchStatuses/)? > In addition to the above problems, asio has what is IMO a serious > design flaw: its I/O channel objects are statically typed. Since we > wish to treat sockets, pipes, and whatever-fds-0-and-1-are as > interchangeable, this requires a large hairy wrapper around all asio > interfaces, which I started but got bogged down on. I was just reading thru the asio docs, and wondering "where is the base IO object type". I gather the answer is "there isn't one"! So I agree, that's a design flaw. > I'm also not sure asio's Windows support is good enough for us. I'll see if I can build a small example that tests the essentials. > I've been looking at libevent instead, but it has its own problems, > e.g. not handling the creation of a network socket. It's written in > C, though, so there's no question of ABI skew, and it uses a normal > build system. That sounds good; I'll see if I can work up a Windows example for that as well. -- -- Stephe _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel