Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-03 01:14:46

>> ...if you want Beast into the C++ standard, you really ought to
>> say that's your plan now as an announcement. You'll get a much more
>> useful to you review
> 
> See item 5:
> <http://vinniefalco.github.io/stage/beast/review/beast/design_choices/faq.html>

I freely admit I read that entire document and missed the sentence "it
is the author's goal to propose this library for standardization". I
thought that FAQ item was about your roadmap for supporting standalone
ASIO. Sorry.

>> WG21...see ASIO as the interim Networking v1, with a strong expectation that a
>> v2 will replace it once they've done iostreams v2
> 
> I don't have the same experience and involvement with the C++
> luminaries that you have, so I lack an inside track on what will
> become part of C++2023 or C++2026. Meanwhile, Beast users want HTTP
> solutions today so in the absence of reliable tea leaves I can only
> design for what is standard (or close to it).

Do remember I suggested you design for a different part of the standard,
not away from the standard.

I've been preparing the ground and reading the tea leaves for an
eventual AFIO standardisation for some years now by talking to anyone on
WG21 with an opinion regarding i/o. Obviously there is a strong
selection bias in there in my sampling, I may be far off the mark for
the consensus opinion which I presently believe to be mostly
indifference as an iostreams v2 is not seen as high priority right now.
But if say something like Rust or Swift rolled out a provably superior
solution which got headlines, that could change very quickly.

I also would say as a former SC22 mirror convenor that an accurate way
of looking at ISO is that it's the place multinationals send their
people to slow down or prevent standardisation of things which could
harm their interests. A lot of people express frustration with WG21, but
it makes sense when seen as a place mainly to stop and delay change.
That's how ISO configures things, multinationals overwhelmingly dominate
the national votes through being multi national.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/