Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-03 16:34:55

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > 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)?

I don't see why not. For example I think it was a mistake to reject Synapse
on the basis of "we have a signal library in Boost already", because there
is literally nothing in common between it and Boost Signal, except that the
latter can be used in a subset of the cases where Synapse can be used.

If we reject a library it should be on its own merits, not on the merits of
another library, except if the differences are trivial.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at