Subject: Re: [boost] [beast] Request for Discussion
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-02 11:08:49
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Bjorn Reese <breese_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Looking briefly at your HTTP parser I can see that it is a push parser,
> which may serve your current purposes, but not those of higher-level
> use cases.
Beast offers parsing free functions that are not advertised loudly
(because they are more complicated to use, but give callers more
These functions accept any object meeting the Parser type requirements:
Although, this interface might still have as an unstated requirement,
that such a parser must be of the "push" variety.
I did some Internet searching about push versus pull parsing, both now
and a bit ago when there was chatter about Boost.Http adopting a pull
parser. All I could find was push versus pull parsing in the context
of processing XML and HTML content. I was unable to find anything
having to do with pull parsing and HTTP, with the exception of some
I'm having a difficult time understanding how a pull parser would be
suitable for an algorithm that can operate on a network socket -
perhaps you can enlighten me?
> The purpose of the BSoC project was to investigate the more flexible
> design of pull parsers that extends more easily to higher-level
I'm very interested in hearing about these higher-level use cases. Is
there a discussion or some kind of example that I can study? Or can
you provide more details? If there's some sort of design flaw in Beast
that prevents users from important implementations, I would like to
find out and address it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk