Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion

Subject: Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-09-23 14:08:49

On 9/23/16 9:25 AM, Vinnie Falco wrote:

> I would like to hear from as many of these individuals as possible,
> about their experience looking at Beast and taking it for a test
> drive, before starting the formal review process.

Indeed.  One of the big motivations behind the incubator is to
permit the gathering of information before the review at a time
which is convenient for potential reviewers.  That is, I wanted
to decouple the review from a narrow two week window.

It hasn't worked out that way.  But I haven't given up hope.  People 
love the general developer's mailing list. My next idea is to replace 
the comments implementation with a facade over the developer's mailing 
list which selects posts regarding a particular library.  This is in 
keeping with the incubator implementation strategy of tailgating on 
resources maintained by other people.  Unfortunately, I haven't found an 
easy way to do this yet.

>
> I think public feedback on Beast from the author of Boost.Http is
> crucial, since Beast claims to offer uncontroversial low level
> functionality which Boost.Http would have to use if Beast is accepted
> to Boost. Perplexingly, I have seen no evidence of any public dialogue
> from Vinicius about his current client interface goals, or any plan to
> refactor Boost.Http to use Beast. I'd like to hear his reasoning for
> why a HTTP library needs to "support multiple backends" (what does
> that mean?), a theme which came up often in his responses to review
> feedback. Is this a feature that serves the needs of users?

"things should be as simple as possible but no simpler"  Unfortunately 
this axiom gets lost from time to time in Boost and other projects which 
have to satisfy too many people.  Bjarne referred to this inadvertently 
in his keynote - "Boost libraries sometimes needlessly over complicated" 
(unlike standard library components).

BTW - I very much liked your idea of handing out your tiny brochure at 
CPPCon.  I was especially a good idea to make it the size you did - 
about 3 by 4 inches.  This made it easy to stick in one's pocket and 
kept it from having an accurate subtitle - http access for idiots.

Robert Ramey
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>