Beman Dawes wrote:
My sense with ACE is that while Boost developers know it exists, they usually aren't regular ACE users, and so have trouble judging the pros and cons.
That surprises me somewhat - since writing "platform-independent" multi-threaded code was the reason while in at least three projects I was working at ACE was used. As Jeff Garland writes, the only /drawback/ was "the cost of ACE as the diskspace for all the ACE features I'm not going to use on my project". But having threads, processes, *IPC and shared memory*... in one relieable and performant free framework with quite an amount of nice patterns and good documentation (this is the only point I'm disagreeing with Jeff Garland, see www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/ACE-tutorial.pdf for an introductionary example). But of course, that was before the advent of boost threads and boost sockets:-) But I think both libraries' implementors should know this framework - it might be of help. Ali