Boost logo

Boost :

From: Darren Garvey (lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-09 10:20:26

On 09/03/07, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Darren Garvey wrote:
> > Maybe it's just me, but the apparent difficulty of the different soc
> ideas
> > varies quite a bit. As it is, I'm unsure if a cgi library that works
> with
> > SCGI and FastCGI - one based on boost and asio specifically - would be
> > considered a reasonable project for the SoC? I don't think there is
> > currently any such library for c++ and I for one would find it very
> useful.
> Yes, I think this would be a very useful library -- I have a homegrown one
> I've used in some personal apps. C++ developers want to program for the
> web
> as much as anyone else and the libs for C++ are, sadly, poor in comparison
> to
> other languages. Before focusing in on SCGI and FastCGI, what about
> support
> for plain old cgi request decoding and such? Would that be part of it?

Of course. :) The idea would be to use a cgi::request object, which you
could pass a 'service' object to: the service object deals with the protocol
and then the resulting cgi-shaped request can be transparently accessed
through the request object.

> Is it worth my while submitting a proposal? This is something I'd very
> much
> > like to do, especially as part of the SoC.
> My worry is that the scope might be too large for SoC though. In any
> case,
> there might be a reasonable scope that could be carved out -- let's
> discuss it
> more :-)

Well I've been having a go implementing the fastcgi protocol using asio and
even though it's not finished, I believe given some dedicated time I could
have it fully working. SCGI is supposed to be 'simple' - and seems to be -
so that shouldn't be too big a deal to add: either way, that is something
that could follow, I suppose? Then there's the docs of course. Forgoing any
major oversight on my part, from what I understand so far, I think it is
doable in 2-3 months.

> Incidentally, it's a project which _could_ be 'extended' into implementing
> > unix domain sockets or pipes too as technically, these transport media
> > should be supported by fastcgi applications.
> Is it really worth it? TCP sockets are pretty optimized by OS's at this
> point...

It probably isn't, although I honestly don't know. Thankfully it won't
really matter since servers should be able to run fastcgi apps via tcp
anyway (apache and lighttpd do). Using UDS/pipes is purely an optimisation.


Thanks for the reply,

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at