Re: Capy Review

On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 1:15 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I am not reviewing Capy/Corosio as replacements for ASIO, but as libraries
> in their own right.  Saying that ASIO does it that way is not a
> rationale, and referencing ASIO is not an explanation.
>

This message is for the review manager and everyone else.

So that we don't waste everyone's time (including mine), Capy and Corosio
are a replacement for Boost.Asio. That is the stated intent. References to
Asio's execution model are explaining what we kept, what we changed, and
why.

They are separate because not everyone needs sockets. Capy provides the
coroutine execution model, and byte-oriented streams. Business logic that
operates on streams: HTTP parsing, protocol state machines, serialization,
can be expressed without Corosio's platform-specific I/O. Capy is the part
you can use everywhere, including environments where sockets don't exist.
Corosio adds the platform layer: sockets, timers, reactors.

A review that evaluates only Capy, declines to examine Corosio, and finds
it wanting is not engaging with what was submitted. I wouldn't call such a
review an abomination. I would call it a misunderstanding.

I realize that the two-library physical division is not what folks are used
to, and I am sure that the Boost community is smart enough to navigate this
novelty as presented.

Best
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/WMEOUHLNO7QVY2L32Q66WOX4D5ZGKGCR/