Re: [Capy] Review Note

On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 5:23 PM Peter Dimov via Boost <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Both coroutine support and buffer sequence manipulation are foundational for
> Corosio (and it's not really possible to omit either), so for me both
> clearly belong in Capy.
>
> Streams (and the read/write algorithms) are theoretically possible to omit,
>  but doing so will be a disservice to users and if we do that, it will
> very likely lead to pressure to add read/write as socket methods.
>

This surfaces a recurring issue. If you recall, I had this broken up into 6
libraries. Buffers was separate, I forget what the other subdivisions were.
A common complaint is that Boost is too large. And people want just some
parts without the whole thing. And then we have the desire to not have too
many dependencies.

In principle buffers and streams should be 2 separate libraries from
IoAwaitable. Buffers you can use without either of the other two.
IoAwaitable could be used without buffers and streams, which covers
Rainer's case. What is the right split? I'm comfortable with how we have it
now, Capy and Corosio, but this reflects a political tradeoff instead of
being purely technical.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
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/JZHO3YNJVAWRVTOV6WSAUN3QAF4HQHG3/