\brief Policy Framework public header
\todo We should probably remove BufferingPolicy from the
- interface, it does not make much sense (how did I come to include
- it ??)
+ interface, it does not make much sense (how did I come to
+ include it ??)
\todo Do we want to support separate read and write policies. This
- allows to treat pipes within this framework however, is this worth
- the effort?
+ allows to treat pipes within this framework however, is this
+ worth the effort?
+
+ \idea Creating a new Socket will create three new instances (The
+ handle, the body and the policy) of which two (body and
+ policy) live on the heap. This is expensive. We should check,
+ wether we can make all the policy classes to singletons and
+ assign the same instance to all socket bodies with the same
+ policy. This would reduce the number of allocations per socket
+ handle to one.
*/
/** \defgroup policy_group The Policy Framework
senf::ConnectedCommunicationPolicyIs is based on the \c
boost::enable_if template).
- \see \ref policy_framework \n
- \ref extend_policy \n
+ \see \ref extend_policy \n
<a class="ext" href="http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/enable_if.html">The Boost enable_if utility</a> \n
<a class="ext" href="http://www.boost.org/libs/mpl/doc/index.html">The Boost.MPL library</a> \n
<a class="ext" href="http://www.boost.org/libs/preprocessor/doc/index.html">The Boost.Preprocessor library</a>