Re: [boost] Boost.HTTP ?

From: Michael Dickey (mike_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-10 18:58:23

On Dec 10, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:

> Michael Dickey wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Phil Endecott wrote:
>>> Far from merging your library into something else, I encourage you  
>>> to
>>> see how much you can break it up into smaller chunks and to make it
>>> compatible with, yet not dependent on, other libraries.
>>
>> It's definitely moving in that direction.  For example, you can use
>> the client-side part of the library without touching any server-side
>> stuff, and you can even parse HTTP messages without any networking
>> code.  I agree with the approach of breaking pieces out and pushing
>> them into a lower-level space like cpp-netlib  over time.
>>
>> I guess a big question is, does _server-side_ functionality belong in
>> Boost?  I think for most cases, you're going to use an external
>> packaged server to solve a problem.
>
> I might have agreed with you a few years ago but recently I've come to
> the conclusion that it's better to just implement an HTTP server.  In
> the past I have written CGI programs, which have the problem of
> starting one process per request, and Apache modules, where I have  
> used
> Boost.Interprocess to store inter-request data.  Just writing an HTTP
> server is simpler and better, and you can get Apache features
> (compression, encryption, authentication, etc. etc.) by using its
> mod_proxy to forward requests to your separate server.

I agree; that's why I wrote the library: to make it really easy to  
embed your own HTTP server =)

I think what I was trying to say is just that for most servers, taking  
an embedded/roll-your-own path is hard to justify.  But HTTP is  
becoming somewhat of a special case, in that it's more often easier to  
justify embedding a simple server in your application, versus  
integration with an outside server using CGI or some other API.

Take care,
-Mike