qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: APR dependency for C++ broker
Date Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:15:51 GMT

Alan Conway wrote:
> (CCd qpid-dev for more feedback)
> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:39 -0500, Nuno Santos wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>> while talking to Carl about how the trunk of APR already supports SSL 
>> (though the stable version we're using does not), he mentioned that 
>> we're trying to move away from APR and that you've been working on 
>> that... my original thoughts were that since we depended on APR already, 
>> that it might make sense to wait for the SSL-enabled release (depending 
>> on the release timeframe, obviously), but if we're ditching APR then 
>> I'll have to look elsewhere... any comments/suggestions on that?
> It's high time we had a discussion about this.
> APR is a nasty C wrapper that imposes function call overhead and uses
> none of the features of C++ to make the API more type-safe, efficient or
> usable. I'd like to find a decent C++ library for the job if there is
> one.
> http://asio.sourceforge.net/ looks promising - it's been accepted into
> boost (which qpid uses a lot) and proposed for the next C++ standard. 
> http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-overview.html has been around for a
> long time and has a good reputation for speed in the CORBA world.
> Does anyone have any comments on these or other general IO wrappers that
> might be interesting for Qpid?
> Even if we adopt a different/no wrapper for the qpid core, we can still
> use APR for SSL but I'd like to take a bit of time to investigate
> alternatives. Nuno would you be able to do a bit of reading while I get
> AMQP 0-9 out of my hair?
> Cheers,
> Alan.


Why not focus on the native posix one first?


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message