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 15:19:58

>> 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)?

That's a great question. It could be that I am over egging the
importance of there being a lower layer independent of networking
implementation. But then my past HTTP implementations have tended to go
over some really weird non-socket transport layers, so I'm going on what
I know.

Hence I delay my review until others have given theirs. I know that's a
cop out, but it's also recognition that my experience of "normal" HTTP
is limited, and I could be making unreasonable demands.

Niall

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