Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-03 13:19:15


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas via Boost
> Sent: 03 July 2017 13:34
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Niall Douglas
> Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10
>
> On 03/07/2017 03:07, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

> I think that makes sense in a high level HTTP library. For a low level
> HTTP library I think it a design mistake, much simpler is much better.
> Less is more. I've used the above serialiser design on a number of
> occasions now, it's very efficient, composable, and flexible. It *does*
> push understanding of HTTP onto the end user, but then if the end user
> doesn't understand HTTP, they wouldn't be able to use a low level
> library anyway.

If BEAST is accepted, is there any reason why such an even--lower-level library could not (or should not) be written (and also
accepted)?

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk