Subject: Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-09-23 19:58:43
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I really object to your characterization of "how broken the Boost review
> process has become".
> Niall's opinion about your library is his own. Don't push that opinion on
> other Boost developers who may feel differently.
Yup, and my apologies for misreading the situation. When I first
announced Beast, there were months of radio silence. But the great
support and advice that I've received in this thread has been very
> We don't reject such a library if we find it useful as a low-level library.
This is great news! Have you had a chance to give Beast a try? As I
recall, you participated in last year's review of Boost.Http.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk