From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-09 21:43:54
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Hi Jeff!
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 10:32 AM, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Michael Dickey wrote:
>> >
>>> So.. I decided to throw all this out there and see what people think.
>>> Should Boost have its own HTTP library, or should it be part of an
>>> more comprehensive network protocol library?
>> Yes, it should have an HTTP library -- it would be nice if there were other
>> protocols, but not essential.
>>
>
> I have the same feeling, but then other protocols are becoming
> increasingly more and more important as the web matures -- XMPP is
> lurking to be the next generation IM/Messaging protocol, (E)SMTP is
> not going away for Email anytime soon, and FTP is still very popular.
> Maybe having a torrent client library might not be essential, though
> if there's enough interest then it may just be the next generation
> fail-safe P2P storage protocol -- or I might be dreaming too much. ;)
I didn't mean to 'dis' the importance of the other protocols. What I meant to
say is that if we try to bring an entire suite as one library, in one review,
it will a) take a long time, and b) be hard to manage. So I'd rather see them
come as smaller contributions -- perhaps within a shared framework boost::net
or whatever.
>>> Would it be better have
>>> something available sooner in Boost that works and is reliable, and
>>> try to resolve the overlap over time as cpp-netlib matures? Or, would
>>> it be better to wait and try to merge my library (or at least it's
>>> functionality) into cpp-netlib?
>> I think we need a first protocol library to lay the groundwork. Reviews and
>> interactions may lead to a set of standards for handling these sorts of
>> libraries. If http lib is closer to ready then I'd say take it thru the
>> process as that might influence the design of cpp-netlib. Of course, you can
>> take into account what the netlib folks are doing as well. I'd hope that
>> somehow we could avoid redoing the http work...
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> If Mike already has an HTTP client library we can retro-fit to work
> with the cpp-netlib basic_message<> implementation, then I think we
> don't have to re-invent the wheel as far as an HTTP client
> implementation goes -- and cpp-netlib 1.0 might just be around the
> corner once we document it properly and get it tested up to Boost
> standards.
Looks to me like Mike is focused on the server side...so maybe there's not
much overlap anyway.
Jeff