Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion

Subject: Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-09-24 14:17:52

On 9/23/16 13:22, Vinnie Falco wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Niall Douglas
> <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ]> Almost everyone here and in the wider C++ community wants somebody to
>> take the HTTP client API from the Python Requests module
>> (http://docs.python-requests.org/en/master/) and very closely
>> replicate it in C++

<snip python requests stuff>

>
> 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). I
> am sure that someone or some group with expert knowledge in creating
> robust HTTP clients could come along and build the C++ equivalent of
> Python Requests on top of Beast. It should not be controversial when I
> say that Beast offers useful functionality today.
>
> And yet, there are strong opinions that Beast as a low level HTTP
> building block is insufficient to be considered as part of a general
> purpose library Boost. Once again I must ask, if Boost.Asio were
> proposed today would it receive the same critique? Would an absence of
> FTP and HTTP implementations make Christopher Kohlhoff's Asio library
> get rejected in a formal review?

Don't let a few distractors get you down. That isn't how the boost 
review process works. Focused libraries that do something well and can 
be used as building blocks for other libraries and applications is 
exactly what we need more.

michael

-- 
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com