On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Derek Scherger<de...@echologic.com> wrote: > I have been looking at this a bit, largely staring at netsync.cc to try and > get a better idea of what it's doing though. Note that the > net.venge.monotone.asio branch that zack started a while ago does not use > boost::asio, but the standalone variant that does not require linking > against the boost libraries as far as I can tell.
It doesn't need Boost.System, but it does still depend on a few pieces of boost that we're not currently using, notably boost::date_time::posix_time, bleah. > It does seem to need -lpthread on linux though as asio > apparently uses threads internally to simulate certain > asynchronous operations. Yeah, there's not much of an alternative there unless you want to implement your own DNS resolver, which isn't a good idea. [Linux does have getaddrinfo_a, but it's not portable, it may still use threads under the hood, and it reports completion with *signals*. Gag.] > Another thought on this that I've had floating around for a while is that > perhaps rather than starting a second process and running netsync over stdio > we could have two separate database instances open and sync between them > from within a single process. I haven't looked at this in any detail at all > so it might just be a crazy idea, but I think it would avoid all of the > windows related network issues. Maybe some of the refactoring that zack and > markus did a while ago relating to app_state, options and database arguments > in various api's would make the idea of having two open database objects > less crazy? That was one of my goals, in fact. We may not be 100% of the way there yet though. zw _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
