Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion

Subject: Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-09-23 16:46:03

Niall Douglas wrote:
> Almost everyone here and in the wider C++ community wants [...]
Niall Douglas wrote:
> We don't care [...]

This familiar pattern returns. 

Vinnie Falco wrote:
> I think that what Niall has done, probably inadvertently, is to 
> demonstrate just how broken the Boost review process has become. We 
> have Beast, which provides a great implementation of the low level 
> HTTP operations (read and write a message, provide a message model).
> It should not be controversial when I say that Beast offers useful
> functionality today. 

I don't believe Niall has demonstrated anything. I also do not think what
you have said is controversial.

In my opinion (and I speak for myself, not everyone here or the wider C++
community):
1. You have a decent library, both in terms of design and implementation.
Like
Paul, I suggest you put it up for review whenever you feel comfortable. [1]

2. You should keep the focus in your discussions on your library and not on
the Boost review process. If you have interest in improving the latter, do
it
independently of your effort to have your library reviewed.

Glen

[1] If you require more discussion about the interface to reach that level
of
comfort, you've already taken the necessary steps by soliciting feedback
here.
I would just trust the enthusiasm/interest by others in your library to do
the
rest.

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/beast-Request-for-Discussion-tp4688242p4688256.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.