On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira <vini.ipsmaker@gmail.com> wrote:

You could also try to standardize HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 under the same interface.

That is incorrect. All I'm talking about is a simple wrapper which meets the requirements of SyncReadStream and AsyncReadStream which checks the first incoming 3 bytes of data on the stream against the string "ICY" and translates it into "HTTP/1.1" to allow the existing beast parser to recognize a *slightly* non-standard response format. Note the emphasis on the term *slightly*. I have designed a reasonable solution to enable this niche use-case to work without incurring significant technical debt for something that is clearly outside the scope of rfc7230. And you are suggesting that the same technique should be used to make HTTP/2 appear like HTTP/1.1? Or am I not understanding your statement?

The version attribute in the message model[1] might not make sense to all HTTP backends.

I'm not sure what an "HTTP backend" means, but for practical purposes there are three versions of HTTP: HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 HTTP/2 While the content of the messages is the same (start line, zero or more fields, optional body) the semantics of the status-line and the fields differ between versions. For example, the absence of the Connection field in HTTP/1.1 implies keep-alive, while the absence of the Connection field in HTTP/1.0 implies closure. While in HTTP/2 the Connection field is illegal and may not appear at all. The beast message container was designed from the ground up to work with the three versions of HTTP that we have today. In order to capture all of the information available in a message, the container must reflect the HTTP version that is implicitly or explicitly stated in the message. In order to empower authors to write libraries that work with any message (a goal of Beast), the version field must be present.

This discussion reminds me of the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Only the immediate problem is pursued and no attention is given trying to solve the general problem at hand.

That is incorrect. The beast message container is designed to be HTTP/2-ready.

Also, if beast::http::read is what I'll call, then this implies I need to throw my abstractions in `beast::http` namespace

That is incorrect. Beast HTTP stream operations use abstractions for the following objects: stateful stream data uses the DynamicBuffer concept <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/concepts/DynamicBuffer.html> message payload uses the Body concept <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/concepts/Body.html> message headers use the Fields concept <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/concepts/Fields.html> the stream uses the SyncReadStream, SyncWriteStream, AsyncReadStream, and AsyncWriteStream concepts from Asio: <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/SyncReadStream.html> <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/SyncWriteStream.html> <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/AsyncReadStream.html> <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/AsyncWriteStream.html> Beast provides several general implementations for most of these concepts, in the beast namespace, but objects may be passed from types in any namespace. For example, beast stream operations work with streams of type `boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket`, which is clearly not in the `beast::http` namespace. This obvious counterexample disproves your claim.

However, a problem is the fact that this translation in the stream needs to happen to actually use the Beast message framework.

That is incorrect. The translation for converting the three character sequence "ICY" at the beginning of a read stream, into "HTTP/1.1" is not necessary to use the beast message container. Rather, it is necessary in order to use the HTTP/1 parsers which come with beast. The parser implementation strictly adheres to rfc7230. As the text "ICY 200 OK\r\n" is not a valid status-line according to rfc7230, I'm sure that you can understand why a strict parser would reject it. Since the vast majority of consumers of HTTP libraries care about reading actual valid HTTP and not SHOUTcast or Icecast MP3 streaming server-specific modifications of the HTTP protocol, my solution for developing a stream adapter to support the non-standard status-line is elegant and pragmatic. In particular, it does not require modifying beast library code which could introduce new security vulnerabilities.

Why a “virtual HTTP stream” needs to exist beyond the virtual field?

My apologies but I am unfamiliar with these new terms "virtual HTTP stream" and "virtual field" that you have introduced. Could you perhaps define them so that I can discuss them on equal footing?

Why does it need to go to memory?

My apologies but I do not understand this question. What is the "it" that you think "needs" to "go to memory?"

Why isn't just limited to the API?

My apologies but I do not understand this question at all. Perhaps you could provide a small code example which illustrates your question or counter-example?

Boost.Http managed to expose this amount of feature without exposing a parser at all.

Does Boost.Http expose a feature which allows it to interpret "ICY 200 OK\r\n" as a valid HTTP status-line according to rfc7230? Thanks

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira <vini.ipsmaker@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a big misunderstanding between us here. ... I thought you were trying to generalize `beast::http::read`.

Hmm...I'll restate it. The beast::http::read algorithm is a generic algorithm which operates on any object meeting the SyncReadStream requirements. A typical setup for un-encrypted connections might look like this: beast::http::read <-- boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket The read algorithm receives data directly from the socket and provides it to the parser. My solution to recognizing "ICY 200 OK\r\n" is simply to add a stream adapter into the middle of this pipeline: beast::http::read <-- icy_stream <-- boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket The stream adapter replaces "ICY" with "HTTP/1.1" if it appears as the first the characters of the input. This adapter would work with any algorithm which operates on the SyncReadStream or AsyncReadStream concept.

...

I'm not sure what an "HTTP backend" means, but for practical purposes there are three versions of HTTP:

HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 HTTP/2

Add ZeroMQ to the list.

Are you saying that HTTP has four versions 1.0, 1.1, 2, and ZeroMQ? A casual search of rfc2616[1], rfc7230[2], and rfc7540[3] does not turn up any matches for "ZeroMQ." Could you please provide a link to the document which describes the ZeroMQ version of HTTP?

The point is making applications that answer HTTP requests (if you're writing a server).

Okay, so I think by this statement you are defining "HTTP backend" thusly: An algorithm which calculates the HTTP response for a given HTTP request and optional, additional state information associated with the connection or application. The style I am promoting for these types of algorithms, is evidenced in the example HTTP servers which come with Beast [4]. If you look at those servers, you will notice that although each server offers different features (plain, SSL, synchronous, asynchronous, support for websocket) they all contain an identical copy of a function with this signature: // This function produces an HTTP response for the given // request. The type of the response object depends on the // contents of the request, so the interface requires the // caller to pass a generic lambda for receiving the response. template< class Body, class Allocator, class Send> void handle_request( boost::beast::string_view doc_root, http::request<Body, http::basic_fields<Allocator>>&& req, Send&& send); More formally, the style of requesting handling is expressed as a pure function: {m', s'} = f(m, s) where f is the function m is the HTTP request s is the initial state m' is the HTTP response s' is the final state Authors can write pure functions such as `handle_request` above, and since they are using beast::message as a common container for HTTP messages, those pure functions can then be composed. This allows higher level libraries to be composed from lower level ones to arbitrary degree. That all the different Beast example servers work using the same logic for processing requests is evidence that the design achieves its goal.

For some, this meant writing plugins for existing HTTP servers.

Of course, the `handle_request` signature I provided above can only be called directly for code that executes within the same process. In order to delegate request processing to another process, it is necessary to serialize the HTTP message, deliver it to the other process, and then deserialize it back into the message container. That is why Beast stream algorithms operate on concepts. So you can implement "ostream_socket" which meets the requirements of SyncWriteStream, and then use that stream with beast::http::write to deliver an HTTP message to another process connected via an output file descriptor. Still, the design remains the same, but a layer to deliver the message to another process is required.

From my point of view, there is no need restrict to this set of HTTP versions. You should abstract the meaning/behaviour beyond that, Just like I wrote above:

I must disagree. The semantics of an HTTP message can change depending on the version. I also disagree that a representation of HTTP-version needs to be broad enough to include ZeroMQ. What does that even mean? ZeroMQ is not an HTTP version. I will restate: There are currently three meaningful HTTP versions: HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 HTTP/2 These are documented in RFCs and well defined.

A lack of abstract thinking.

No, my design does not represent a lack of abstract thinking. Quite the opposite. I have used abstractions *where appropriate*. Examples: Inappropriate abstraction: template<class HTTPMessage> void handle_message(HTTPMessage const&); Good abstraction: template<bool isRequest, class Body, class Fields> void handle_message(beast::http::message<isRequest, Body, Fields> const&); I think your preoccupation with backends has good intentions. And it should be clear to you now given my explanation and example code that Beast was specifically designed to allow for unlimited flexibility in how users choose to consume HTTP messages. If you still disagree I would kindly ask that you provide a counter-example in the form of pseudo-code that demonstrates your case.

The “In order to [...] in a message, the container must reflect the HTTP version” sentence is very interesting. It means I need to expose exactly the same message received from the wire to the user... like you need different API to support HTTP/2.0. Is my understanding of your sentence correct?

"support HTTP/2.0" is a vague question, so I will decompose it into two questions: * Does Beast require a different container to represent HTTP/2 messages? * Does Beast require different interfaces to serialize and deserialize HTTP/2 messages on streams? Note that I've answered these questions already both on the list and in the Beast documentation but for the sake being fully informed the answers to those questions are "No" and "Yes."

Because the container doesn't need to reflect the HTTP version.

Again I have to disagree. The interpretation of HTTP field values can be different depending on the HTTP-version (which can be 1.0, 1.1, or 2).

In my view, there are capabilities, like `native_stream`.

Okay. I don't know what that is. Can you provide a link to where the "native_stream" HTTP feature is explained?

Even the HTTP/2.0 multiplexing behaviour can be supported under the same simple API with no additional complexities in the message container.

Are you changing the subject from message containers to stream algorithms? When you refer to "simple API" are you talking about a stream algorithm? A serialization/deserialization algorithm? I agree that it is possible to design an interface to stream operations which can be agnostic to whether the underlying connection uses HTTP/1 versus HTTP/2. However, such a library would by definition not be a low-level library. It could be decomposed into four parts: 1. A universal HTTP message container 2. Serialization and stream operations for HTTP/1 3. Serialization and stream operations for HTTP/2 4. A unified interface using parts 1, 2, and 3 Beast provides 1 and 2 above. And I have plans to provide 3. I have no plans to provide 4, although with 1, 2, and 3 it could certainly be implemented and it would be much easier than having to write everything. My intuition is that users who say they want a unified interface, and get a unified interface, will later realize that they didn't need it at all. But the pitch of a unified stream operations interface that works with HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 is of course quite appealing because it creates the illusion of getting HTTP/2 support "for free." But as I said I think there are problems with it which will only become apparent after someone tries to offer such an interface, and users actually try to use it. Regardless, a unified interface can be decomposed. And any library which CAN be decomposed, SHOULD be decomposed strictly on the principle of separation of concerns.

“that is incorrect” + “message container is designed to be HTTP/2-ready” seems to me that you didn't understand my complaint.

Perhaps I did not understand your complaint. If you could repeat it in clear terms that could help.

Talking about parsers, what is your opinion on the design of parsers like showed in this talk: https://vimeo.com/channels/ndcoslo2016/171704565

It looks like an implementation detail. My experience with Beast is that the vast majority of users don't care about how the parser is implemented other than that it works and that it is reasonably fast or at least does not produce a visible slowdown in the application. Users want these operations: parse_header() // parse just the header parse() // parse whatever is left Thus far no one has expressed a desire to interact with HTTP message tokens as they appear. However, should someone wish to do so the Beast parser abstracts the post-processing of tokens by delegating them to a derived class using CRTP. So for example, when the day comes that someone wants to discard fields they don't recognize or care about, they can do so. And they will find ample documentation on this subject along with examples: <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/using_http/custom_parsers.html>

Virtual field is not to be confused with HTTP field.

Ahh... okay. Yes, I thought you meant HTTP field. Thanks for clarifying.

However, like I stated in the beginning of the email, I thought you were talking about the Beast message model. However, you're talking about the parser. In this case (reusing the parser), I'll limit myself to Bjørn words: “Sounds like a good solution.”

Oh.. yeah. The conversion from ICY to HTTP/1.1 is just a rewriting of the buffer as an object inserted into the pipeline between the socket and the read algorithm.

But I'm still curious about what you think about this talk: https://vimeo.com/channels/ndcoslo2016/171704565

I don't really think much of it. Seems like a case of over-engineering to me. HTTP parsing is relatively straightforward and in the case of Beast it is a solved problem. Beast's parser works, has extensive tests and code coverage, has been through a gauntlet of fuzzed inputs, and is currently undergoing a security audit by a third party company. Note that HTTP grammar does not require backtracking so I am not seeing an immediate benefit from implementing a parser combinator. This might not be true for some of the fields though, so perhaps a parser combinator might be useful there. However, parsing the values of fields (other than Connection, Proxy-Connection, Upgrade, Transfer-Encoding, and Content-Length) is strictly out-of-scope for Beast and would be the subject of a different library. URIs require backtracking for authority elements missing the slash but Beast doesn't parse the request-target, it just presents it as a string_view to the caller. So the same rationale about being out of scope applies. I always welcome these discussions since they offer the possibility of improvements. Or in this case they further cement the justifications for the design decisions made in Beast. Thanks [1] <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt> [2] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230> [3] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540> [4] <https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/7fe74b1bf544a64ecf8985fde44abf88f9902251/example/http/server/async/http_server_async.cpp#L97>