From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-09 21:43:54
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Hi Jeff!
> On Dec 10, 2007 10:32 AM, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Michael Dickey wrote:
>>> So.. I decided to throw all this out there and see what people think.
>>> Should Boost have its own HTTP library, or should it be part of an
>>> more comprehensive network protocol library?
>> Yes, it should have an HTTP library -- it would be nice if there were other
>> protocols, but not essential.
> I have the same feeling, but then other protocols are becoming
> increasingly more and more important as the web matures -- XMPP is
> lurking to be the next generation IM/Messaging protocol, (E)SMTP is
> not going away for Email anytime soon, and FTP is still very popular.
> Maybe having a torrent client library might not be essential, though
> if there's enough interest then it may just be the next generation
> fail-safe P2P storage protocol -- or I might be dreaming too much. ;)
I didn't mean to 'dis' the importance of the other protocols. What I meant to
say is that if we try to bring an entire suite as one library, in one review,
it will a) take a long time, and b) be hard to manage. So I'd rather see them
come as smaller contributions -- perhaps within a shared framework boost::net
>>> Would it be better have
>>> something available sooner in Boost that works and is reliable, and
>>> try to resolve the overlap over time as cpp-netlib matures? Or, would
>>> it be better to wait and try to merge my library (or at least it's
>>> functionality) into cpp-netlib?
>> I think we need a first protocol library to lay the groundwork. Reviews and
>> interactions may lead to a set of standards for handling these sorts of
>> libraries. If http lib is closer to ready then I'd say take it thru the
>> process as that might influence the design of cpp-netlib. Of course, you can
>> take into account what the netlib folks are doing as well. I'd hope that
>> somehow we could avoid redoing the http work...
> I agree.
> If Mike already has an HTTP client library we can retro-fit to work
> with the cpp-netlib basic_message<> implementation, then I think we
> don't have to re-invent the wheel as far as an HTTP client
> implementation goes -- and cpp-netlib 1.0 might just be around the
> corner once we document it properly and get it tested up to Boost
Looks to me like Mike is focused on the server side...so maybe there's not
much overlap anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk