On 05/17/14 10:56, Dominik Charousset wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:17:25AM +0200, Bjorn Reese wrote:
I have a couple of major concerns with the current submission, and I am going to suggest some substantial changes. I hope that it does not discourage you too much.
I am going to suggest that:
1. The library is broken into more fundamental building-blocks (which is what both Boost and the C++ standard is all about.) 2. A more flexible data flow architecture is adopted. 3. More use of existing Boost libraries.
I recognize three more fundamental building-blocks in the current submission: active objects, messaging middleware, and data flow. I am not against a higher level actor API, but the fundamentals need to be in place first.
Thank you for taking your time for this thorough comment. However, I have to say I disagree on many levels. First of all: C++ is not about having a low level of abstraction. C++ is about having the highest level of abstraction possible without sacrificing performance. What you are suggesting is to not having an actor library in Boost. You want to have a low-level active object library with low-level networking primitives.
[snip] Hi Dominik, The way I read Bjorn's statement: I am not against a higher level actor API, but the fundamentals need to be in place first. is that Bjorn's not objecting to a high level of abstraction; however, he wants a lower level first on which to build the higher level. IOW, he's not saying, as you suggest: to not having an actor library in Boost At least that's the way I read his post, FWIW. -regards, Larry