Add network Address class

[RiscadoA]

Header: core/net/address.hpp Source files: core/net/address.cpp

Class name: cubos::core::net::Address

It should provide:

• default constructor (initially 0.0.0.0).
• copy constructor.
• constructor which takes the four ipv4 octets (x.y.z.w).
• constructor which takes a ipv4 32-bit integer (octets together basically).
• static Opt<Address> from(const std::string& address), can receive any IP or URL. Returns none on error.
• static const Address Any - 0.0.0.0.
• static const Address LocalHost - 127.0.0.1.
• it should implement reflection and contain the StringConversionTrait.

[roby2014]

What is the main purpose, will this store as state just a 32 bit value, or should it hold the socket implementation (WSADATA for windows and int for linux) ?

[RiscadoA]

Just a 32 bit value, I think, to avoid exposing the headers

[roby2014]

So whats the point of having posix and windows address.hpp ? The implementation should be similar, or actually, the same

[RiscadoA]

We won't have two headers, only two different source files. Only one of them is used in each platform

[roby2014]

We won't have two headers, only two different source files. Only one of them is used in each platform

Yes but why? What would differ in storing a simple 32bit value in terms of the implementation proposed

[RiscadoA]

I meant having a single address.hpp, which stores a single 32 bit value. Then, there are two .cpp files, one used in windows, another one used in posix. The implementation of the functions is what differs on the two .cpp files, but the interface is the same, and thats why there is only a single .hpp file. For example, the from function implementation differs on Posix and Windows.

[roby2014]

See my PR implementation above. It will make a bit more sense why I am asking I think. The major implementation is similar, only some functions differ (such as from). But if the major is similar, can't we just use ifdef for those specific functions?

[RiscadoA]

See my PR implementation above. It will make a bit more sense why I am asking I think. The major implementation is similar, only some functions differ (such as from). But if the major is similar, can't we just use ifdef for those specific functions?

Ahhh, I understand. Indeed, in this class the functions are mostly same, it's better to use #ifdef yeah. For consistency we should do the same for the socket and listener classes too then. Ty!