Menu
▾
▴
cpp-netlib-devel — Developers Mailing List
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(52) |
Jun
(30) |
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(11) |
Dec
(19) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(28) |
May
(15) |
Jun
(28) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(125) |
Sep
(116) |
Oct
(85) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
(9) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(40) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(19) |
Nov
(43) |
Dec
(45) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(76) |
Feb
(95) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(23) |
May
(39) |
Jun
(54) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(13) |
Sep
(12) |
Oct
(59) |
Nov
(53) |
Dec
(43) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(43) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(25) |
Apr
(23) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(5) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(6) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 07:23:13
|
Good day everyone, I would like to announce that I've just packaged up and uploaded release 0.6.1 which fixes a lot of failures on MSVC 10 and is forward-compatible with Boost.Spirit. Please test out the release on your machines and report any glaring failures. I will be starting a new branch 0.7-devel which will be rooted on the 0.6.1 tag. Thanks in advance everyone and I hope to hear from you soon! -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 04:15:24
|
Hey Matt!
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Matt Trentini <mat...@gm...> wrote:
> Heya Dean,
>
> As always, thanks to you, Glyn and everyone else associated with the
> cpp-netlib; we're using it on a live project and have found it very
> useful!
>
You're welcome, this means a great deal to know that you're using it
in a live project already! You've just made my day. :)
>> * asynchronous http client
>
> Async HTTP is the only feature in the list that we require. We've
> actually managed to cobble together an async solution based on
> cpp-netlib but it's so ugly that I haven't contributed it back. We
> did have plans to tidy it up and submit it to you guys but finding
> time is proving *very* difficult.
>
I know how that feels.
I actually have done some work before on a cpp-netlib fork before that
unfortunately they haven't authorized to be released back into
cpp-netlib -- and one of the things I did there was actually support a
real asynchronous HTTP client. Now though we have an opportunity of
implementing something different, using Boost.Thread's futures for a
real asynchronous HTTP client. Of course though that would introduce a
few things like making an HTTP client that's actually an active
object, and that will require a bit of gutting the current
implementation.
Fear not though, it sounds like a lot of work but with the magic of
template specialization we'd be leaving a lot of the stuff untouched
-- although later on it would be good to merge things... Scary, but
definitely doable.
> Actually, I should be more specific here. The critical requirement
> for us is to allow *timeouts* on http requests. But I think that -
> internally - you'll need to move the implementation to async asio
> calls to allow the timeout to work correctly. At least that's what we
> did - we initialised a deadline_timer and checked if it had expired
> after each stage of the http request.
>
Yes, we'd have to gut the current sync implementation to use futures
too for this to become real. The complications of adding timeouts
would be something to consider deeply first though, what do you do
when a timeout occurs, do you retry? do you throw? do you return a
message that says that something went wrong in the body?
Lots of questions that need to be answered first before we go about
sprinkling in timeout support for requests. ;)
If you or anybody would like to take this on too or have a proposal on
how to fix it, then I'm all ears and very supportive. I love github
and encourage everyone to fork and do crazy things with cpp-netlib. :)
>> Are there any specific requests for improvement in the documentation that you would like me
>> personally to address?
>
> An example with a threadpool would be nice: Push an http request into
> a threadpool and get a callback when it's been completed (or timed
> out).
>
I think this would require a little bit of help. I intend on hiding
the threadpool into a single thread and turning the asynchronous
client into an active object.
>> cout << body(http::client().get(http::client::request("http://www.boost.org/")) << endl;
>
> Excellent!
>
Thanks!
> Thanks again,
> Matt
>
You're very much welcome, thanks for the feedback Matt!
> PS, when I tried to download the source in either zip or tgz through
> github a virus was found (by github):
>
> Virus/PUS: "Email-Worm.Win32.Plexus.a" found!
>
> It was in one of the test messages:
>
> http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib/blob/master/libs/mime/test/TestMessages/00001136
>
> Is this intended??
>
I would say that's not intentional, and that's part of the MIME
library tests. I've copied Marshall to this email so that he can take
a look and maybe do something about the offending email.
Thanks for letting us know!
--
Dean Michael Berris
deanberris.com
|
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 03:52:55
|
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Nelson, Erik - 2 <eri...@ba...> wrote: > Dean Michael Berris wrote: > >> Please >> indicate your votes so I can focus my energies (and other people >> interested in contributing) towards completing something that matters >> to those already in the list > > Since you asked :) I wouldn't mind a little more focus on efficiency... > if I call http::client.post() with a payload (body), it looks to me like > that body gets fully copied at least 5 times in cpp-netlib before it > goes down the wire if I understand correctly. > Hmmm... That's odd. Are you just looking at the code or are you tracing that the message is being copied 5 times? The copy should only happen once and only if there's a redirect encountered. Are you trying with the latest in master or with a previous release of the library? > In my application, I routinely send 10-20MB messages. I haven't done > any testing but it seems to me that there might be a way to do this a > little more efficiently. > Please let me know where these copies occur and when. I can try it out on my own but it looks like you've looked into it already -- pointers greatly appreciated. Thanks for your input Erik! -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 03:50:24
|
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote: > > On 27 May 2010 15:48, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: >> [snip] >> >> * asynchronous http client >> * streaming http client support >> * web framework >> * smtp client >> * more message algorithms (transforms, renderers) >> * more message specializations (for CString, QString, etc.) >> * xmpp client >> > > Are all these equally hard or time-consuming? >From the outset, I'd say yes -- they all require pretty much the same amount of work and the same amount of time to complete, so I'm thinking of which one would have most of my effort. > Some tests for message > specializations would be worthwhile; an SMTP client could be good to prove > the architecture. I think we already have the basics of the message specializations tests in there (the one that uses the template based testing of Boost.Test) -- it's just a matter of adding more, and I think anyone can pick that up and run away with it. :) The SMTP client will need a lot of thinking on my part -- which I plan to work on with Marshall because he already has a lot of experience in that field. It's also one of those things I kinda hinted would have to be implemented within the year which works well with the MIME library that Marshall is working on. ;) > I have started a branch in my own fork for the XMPP client, so I hope you > provide discussion on that (I'll push some more changes when I get home this > evening). That's cool! Definitely we can discuss that here. I think we better start a thread around it. I plan on stabilizing the master at this time and push a 0.6.1 for the MSVC 10 users. > Additionally, you can implement more examples. I can think of more > interesting to do with the HTTP server, if you have webspace available we > could host some cpp-netlib project-related things (eating our own dog food > could be useful to find any further issues and to showcase our work). > Examples, yes. :) Unfortunately I don't have a server where I have root privileges to run on port 80. If anybody is willing to volunteer some public IP and a server that can run a cpp-netlib developed service that would be *super*. >> >> Of course, documentation is another thing that we all agree could be >> improved -- and I've pretty much indicated my preference for RST by >> writing up my BoostCon paper in that format. Are there any specific >> requests for improvement in the documentation that you would like me >> personally to address? > > Is there anything of your paper and presentation you could incorporate into > the docs at http://cpp-netlib.github.com/ ? I think one good thing to do is to link to the PDF of the paper from the documentation. That should be alright. I plan on writing more papers about different things in the coming weeks and should be something worth looking out for. ;) And, please feel free to take anything from the document and use it in the generated documentation. I'll let you decide which ones are worth pulling into the docs. :) > I have a short to-do list for > this, including: > * Clear directions on how to get cpp-netlib (both packages and git source) > * Clear information on how to run the examples > * More on the theory behind the design > * Extension points for new protocols > * More on URI docs, it's a little neglected All sound good to me, let's git-r-done! :D >> >> The reason I ask is because I want to bring cpp-netlib to a level >> where it would be a viable alternative to other HTTP libraries already >> in the market. I'm thinking of pitching it as a library that can solve >> most, if not all of your HTTP client and HTTP server needs. I also >> would like to bring it to a level that would be Boost-worthy by the >> end of the year, so that either I or others contributing to the effort >> can talk about it in BoostCon 2011. ;) >> > > Do we have a clearer definition of "Boost-worthy"? When you were at > BoostCon, did you get any guage of what might be a minimum acceptable > implementation? > Well, *I* have a good idea on what Boost-worthy means: * Follows Boost guidelines on documentation, licensing, namespace requirements, etc. * Is implemented well, sufficiently cross-platform, and delivers the features as advertised * Something we all can be proud of to show to other people Someone actually asked me what the plan was, and I said I wanted to get it to a point where it is 1.0-worthy and within the year submit for review. My personal target is September, which is just a few months away. It should be easier now for me because I have a spiffy new machine to build/test on and thanks to Microsoft Philippines, access to an evaluation version of Visual Studio 2010 Professional -- which apparently is a larger audience in Boost. So... really we just want to get 1.0 out the door and submit for a review. I still maintain that 1.0 should have: * asynchronous HTTP client * (e)smtp client * MIME * xmpp We're running out of numbers in between 0.6 and 1.0 (assuming that we stop at 0.9 and "upgrade" to 1.0) so it would be good if we can get a move on with these things. Help would really be appreciated. > > I will be away all next week, but over the rest of the summer I'd like to > put more time into this project. Cool, definitely much appreciated Glyn! > Thanks, Thank you too! :) -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Matt T. <mat...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 02:48:18
|
Heya Dean,
As always, thanks to you, Glyn and everyone else associated with the
cpp-netlib; we're using it on a live project and have found it very
useful!
> * asynchronous http client
Async HTTP is the only feature in the list that we require. We've
actually managed to cobble together an async solution based on
cpp-netlib but it's so ugly that I haven't contributed it back. We
did have plans to tidy it up and submit it to you guys but finding
time is proving *very* difficult.
Actually, I should be more specific here. The critical requirement
for us is to allow *timeouts* on http requests. But I think that -
internally - you'll need to move the implementation to async asio
calls to allow the timeout to work correctly. At least that's what we
did - we initialised a deadline_timer and checked if it had expired
after each stage of the http request.
> Are there any specific requests for improvement in the documentation that you would like me
> personally to address?
An example with a threadpool would be nice: Push an http request into
a threadpool and get a callback when it's been completed (or timed
out).
> cout << body(http::client().get(http::client::request("http://www.boost.org/")) << endl;
Excellent!
Thanks again,
Matt
PS, when I tried to download the source in either zip or tgz through
github a virus was found (by github):
Virus/PUS: "Email-Worm.Win32.Plexus.a" found!
It was in one of the test messages:
http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib/blob/master/libs/mime/test/TestMessages/00001136
Is this intended??
|
|
From: Nelson, E. - 2 <eri...@ba...> - 2010-05-27 18:55:04
|
Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Please > indicate your votes so I can focus my energies (and other people > interested in contributing) towards completing something that matters > to those already in the list: The streaming http client support seems pretty useful to me, both on the client and server sides. Erik |
|
From: Nelson, E. - 2 <eri...@ba...> - 2010-05-27 16:42:59
|
Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Please > indicate your votes so I can focus my energies (and other people > interested in contributing) towards completing something that matters > to those already in the list Since you asked :) I wouldn't mind a little more focus on efficiency... if I call http::client.post() with a payload (body), it looks to me like that body gets fully copied at least 5 times in cpp-netlib before it goes down the wire if I understand correctly. In my application, I routinely send 10-20MB messages. I haven't done any testing but it seems to me that there might be a way to do this a little more efficiently. Erik |
|
From: Glyn M. <gly...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 14:29:57
|
Hola Dean, On 27 May 2010 15:48, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Now that Boost.Trunk has an updated BOOST_SPIRIT_VERSION macro that we > can switch on for the transform_action thingy, I guess that will be > solved in my next push. Having said that, I would like to know what > next you would like to see in the next release of cpp-netlib. I have > some time on my hands now and a spanking new machine to play with > while I'm pretty much idling and doing high level stuff. Please > indicate your votes so I can focus my energies (and other people > interested in contributing) towards completing something that matters > to those already in the list: > > * asynchronous http client > * streaming http client support > * web framework > * smtp client > * more message algorithms (transforms, renderers) > * more message specializations (for CString, QString, etc.) > * xmpp client > > Are all these equally hard or time-consuming? Some tests for message specializations would be worthwhile; an SMTP client could be good to prove the architecture. I have started a branch in my own fork for the XMPP client, so I hope you provide discussion on that (I'll push some more changes when I get home this evening). Additionally, you can implement more examples. I can think of more interesting to do with the HTTP server, if you have webspace available we could host some cpp-netlib project-related things (eating our own dog food could be useful to find any further issues and to showcase our work). > My personal leaning is towards more of the HTTP stuff, but I guess I > can say that the current state of the HTTP client seems sufficient for > most of the use cases I (or most users, I imagine) would ever need 90% > of the time. I just want to know if people in the list find more > important things for me to work on. > > Of course, documentation is another thing that we all agree could be > improved -- and I've pretty much indicated my preference for RST by > writing up my BoostCon paper in that format. Are there any specific > requests for improvement in the documentation that you would like me > personally to address? > Is there anything of your paper and presentation you could incorporate into the docs at http://cpp-netlib.github.com/ ? I have a short to-do list for this, including: * Clear directions on how to get cpp-netlib (both packages and git source) * Clear information on how to run the examples * More on the theory behind the design * Extension points for new protocols * More on URI docs, it's a little neglected > The reason I ask is because I want to bring cpp-netlib to a level > where it would be a viable alternative to other HTTP libraries already > in the market. I'm thinking of pitching it as a library that can solve > most, if not all of your HTTP client and HTTP server needs. I also > would like to bring it to a level that would be Boost-worthy by the > end of the year, so that either I or others contributing to the effort > can talk about it in BoostCon 2011. ;) > > Do we have a clearer definition of "Boost-worthy"? When you were at BoostCon, did you get any guage of what might be a minimum acceptable implementation? > So if you have any specific requests that are not on the list that you > feel is really important, then I suggest you let me know now before I > put my head down again and start going down the rabbit hole of massive > refactoring and gutting of the HTTP implementation once again. :) > > Oh, and as a parting shot, the following will now compile as a > one-liner-http-get of the boost website: > > cout << body(http::client().get(http::client::request(" > http://www.boost.org/")) > << endl; > > Have a great day and I hope to hear from you soon! :) > I will be away all next week, but over the rest of the summer I'd like to put more time into this project. Thanks, G |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 13:48:57
|
Hi Guys,
Now that Boost.Trunk has an updated BOOST_SPIRIT_VERSION macro that we
can switch on for the transform_action thingy, I guess that will be
solved in my next push. Having said that, I would like to know what
next you would like to see in the next release of cpp-netlib. I have
some time on my hands now and a spanking new machine to play with
while I'm pretty much idling and doing high level stuff. Please
indicate your votes so I can focus my energies (and other people
interested in contributing) towards completing something that matters
to those already in the list:
* asynchronous http client
* streaming http client support
* web framework
* smtp client
* more message algorithms (transforms, renderers)
* more message specializations (for CString, QString, etc.)
* xmpp client
My personal leaning is towards more of the HTTP stuff, but I guess I
can say that the current state of the HTTP client seems sufficient for
most of the use cases I (or most users, I imagine) would ever need 90%
of the time. I just want to know if people in the list find more
important things for me to work on.
Of course, documentation is another thing that we all agree could be
improved -- and I've pretty much indicated my preference for RST by
writing up my BoostCon paper in that format. Are there any specific
requests for improvement in the documentation that you would like me
personally to address?
The reason I ask is because I want to bring cpp-netlib to a level
where it would be a viable alternative to other HTTP libraries already
in the market. I'm thinking of pitching it as a library that can solve
most, if not all of your HTTP client and HTTP server needs. I also
would like to bring it to a level that would be Boost-worthy by the
end of the year, so that either I or others contributing to the effort
can talk about it in BoostCon 2011. ;)
So if you have any specific requests that are not on the list that you
feel is really important, then I suggest you let me know now before I
put my head down again and start going down the rabbit hole of massive
refactoring and gutting of the HTTP implementation once again. :)
Oh, and as a parting shot, the following will now compile as a
one-liner-http-get of the boost website:
cout << body(http::client().get(http::client::request("http://www.boost.org/"))
<< endl;
Have a great day and I hope to hear from you soon! :)
--
Dean Michael Berris
deanberris.com
|
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 02:52:28
|
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote: > > On 26 May 2010 17:04, Nelson, Erik - 2 <eri...@ba...> > wrote: >> >> Jeroen Habraken wrote: >> >> > That did the trick, but I'd really like to keep the URI code >> > compatible with a boost release (at least 1.43.0, but preferably >> > further back), what's your take on this? >> >> +1 from me... there's no way my project can depend on a non-released >> boost. > > +1 from me too on compatibility with official releases; it would be > difficult to promote cpp-netlib if it's a constant moving target. I'd even > prefer compatibility with older releases too. Oh all right... :P FWIW, the code in master was changed with the appropriate spirit macro checks for versions. I would bug someone on the Spirit team to update the version in the trunk so that we can switch on the version appropriately. > Otherwise I can report that all tests pass on gcc 4.4.3 on ubuntu linux > 10.04 against boost trunk. Cool! Thanks Glyn! :) -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Glyn M. <gly...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 18:05:55
|
On 26 May 2010 17:04, Nelson, Erik - 2 <eri...@ba...>wrote: > Jeroen Habraken wrote: > > > That did the trick, but I'd really like to keep the URI code > > compatible with a boost release (at least 1.43.0, but preferably > > further back), what's your take on this? > > +1 from me... there's no way my project can depend on a non-released > boost. > +1 from me too on compatibility with official releases; it would be difficult to promote cpp-netlib if it's a constant moving target. I'd even prefer compatibility with older releases too. Otherwise I can report that all tests pass on gcc 4.4.3 on ubuntu linux 10.04 against boost trunk. G |
|
From: Nelson, E. - 2 <eri...@ba...> - 2010-05-26 15:22:01
|
Dean Michael Berris wrote: > I just wanted to share that I recently just got access to a Windows > development machine that is way faster than my Linux development > machine. I've made some changes on my branch's master which basically > fixes issues encountered on MSVC 10. I have yet to fix the broken > tests, but I'm thinking of releasing a 0.6.1 that addresses the MSVC > issues. Yay! More people building on Windows can only help cpp-netlib's portability. Erik |
|
From: Nelson, E. - 2 <eri...@ba...> - 2010-05-26 15:06:40
|
Jeroen Habraken wrote: > That did the trick, but I'd really like to keep the URI code > compatible with a boost release (at least 1.43.0, but preferably > further back), what's your take on this? +1 from me... there's no way my project can depend on a non-released boost. Erik |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 10:15:19
|
That should be fine, but the problem we have with that is that we depend on transform_action, which has been changed on the trunk. This is in master at the moment and will only matter when Spirit is released with the next Boost version. If you know the correct macros to use to choose the correct behavior with Spirit, feel free to hack on it. :) Dean Michael Berris Sent from my Android G1 On May 26, 2010 6:07 PM, "Jeroen Habraken" <vex...@gm...> wrote: On 26 May 2010 11:16, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 11:07, Dean Micha... That did the trick, but I'd really like to keep the URI code compatible with a boost release (at least 1.43.0, but preferably further back), what's your take on this? Jeroen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ___________... |
|
From: Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 10:07:32
|
On 26 May 2010 11:16, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 11:07, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: >>> >>> I have some serious boost::spirit errors scrolling over my screen, oh >>> how I missed them. If possible I'll have a look at them tonight, but >>> long story short, the current trunk unfortunately doesn't build on my >>> Mac. >>> >> >> Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you that you need Boost's SVN trunk. >> There were a few changes that needed to be done to the transform >> thingy. >> >> Are you building against trunk? :D >> >> -- >> Dean Michael Berris >> deanberris.com >> > > No I wasn't (I was building against 1.43.0), let me give trunk a shot. > > Jeroen > That did the trick, but I'd really like to keep the URI code compatible with a boost release (at least 1.43.0, but preferably further back), what's your take on this? Jeroen |
|
From: Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 09:17:29
|
On 26 May 2010 11:07, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: >> >> I have some serious boost::spirit errors scrolling over my screen, oh >> how I missed them. If possible I'll have a look at them tonight, but >> long story short, the current trunk unfortunately doesn't build on my >> Mac. >> > > Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you that you need Boost's SVN trunk. > There were a few changes that needed to be done to the transform > thingy. > > Are you building against trunk? :D > > -- > Dean Michael Berris > deanberris.com > No I wasn't (I was building against 1.43.0), let me give trunk a shot. Jeroen |
|
From: Glyn M. <gly...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 09:08:35
|
On 26 May 2010 10:50, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 10:19, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> > wrote: > >> > >> I can't verify this on Linux until I get home this evening, but you > might > >> want to also update the header boost/network/version.hpp > > > > Ah, cool, I'll do that. :) > > > >> Thanks, > > > > Thanks too Glyn! > > > > -- > > Dean Michael Berris > > deanberris.com > > > > I have some serious boost::spirit errors scrolling over my screen, oh > how I missed them. If possible I'll have a look at them tonight, but > long story short, the current trunk unfortunately doesn't build on my > Mac. > > Jeroen > > Would these have anything to do with changes to boost::spirit::traits::transform_attribute ? I think this has been updated on the boost trunk (it takes a new template parameter): http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/boost/spirit/home/support/attributes.hpp G |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 09:08:16
|
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: > > I have some serious boost::spirit errors scrolling over my screen, oh > how I missed them. If possible I'll have a look at them tonight, but > long story short, the current trunk unfortunately doesn't build on my > Mac. > Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you that you need Boost's SVN trunk. There were a few changes that needed to be done to the transform thingy. Are you building against trunk? :D -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:50:59
|
On 26 May 2010 10:19, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote: >> >> I can't verify this on Linux until I get home this evening, but you might >> want to also update the header boost/network/version.hpp > > Ah, cool, I'll do that. :) > >> Thanks, > > Thanks too Glyn! > > -- > Dean Michael Berris > deanberris.com > I have some serious boost::spirit errors scrolling over my screen, oh how I missed them. If possible I'll have a look at them tonight, but long story short, the current trunk unfortunately doesn't build on my Mac. Jeroen |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:19:51
|
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote: > > I can't verify this on Linux until I get home this evening, but you might > want to also update the header boost/network/version.hpp Ah, cool, I'll do that. :) > Thanks, Thanks too Glyn! -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:19:01
|
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 08:54, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: >> >> Sorry about that, I was assuming everyone knew. :) > > I used to have it, but I've formatted my machine recently! > Ah, yes, I remember how that feels. :) >> >> http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib -- you can clone the git >> repository or get a fork of your own on github too and fix things in >> case I broke anything on your fork, then ask me to pull you changes if >> there are any required. >> >> If any part is unclear please let me know so that I can respond soon as I >> can. > > Sounds fine to me, I'll let you know how I get on. > Cool, looking forward to your findings. :) -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Darren G. <dar...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:16:40
|
On 26 May 2010 08:54, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Darren! > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...> > wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > > > On 26 May 2010 08:00, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> > wrote: > >> > >> Tests from the Linux users would be very much appreciated. > > > > Sounds good. Can you include a link please? I might be able to run the > tests > > on linux later today. > > > > Sorry about that, I was assuming everyone knew. :) > I used to have it, but I've formatted my machine recently! > http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib -- you can clone the git > repository or get a fork of your own on github too and fix things in > case I broke anything on your fork, then ask me to pull you changes if > there are any required. > > If any part is unclear please let me know so that I can respond soon as I > can. > Sounds fine to me, I'll let you know how I get on. Cheers, Darren |
|
From: Glyn M. <gly...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:15:48
|
On 26 May 2010 09:00, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Everyone! > > I just wanted to share that I recently just got access to a Windows > development machine that is way faster than my Linux development > machine. I've made some changes on my branch's master which basically > fixes issues encountered on MSVC 10. I have yet to fix the broken > tests, but I'm thinking of releasing a 0.6.1 that addresses the MSVC > issues. > > Tests from the Linux users would be very much appreciated. > > Thanks and I hope this helps! > > I can't verify this on Linux until I get home this evening, but you might want to also update the header boost/network/version.hpp Thanks, Glyn |
|
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:13:07
|
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Great to see some activity on this list again. I've recently bought a > MacBook Pro, thus I can test the code on an OS X machine. > Oh that's just perfect! Let me know if you have any findings too, and of course, patches are welcome. :) BTW, if you're feeling a little adventurous, you might want to try out building cpp-netlib tests with clang++ as well -- patches to the Jamfile or the CMakeLists file would be greatly appreciated to fix issues on OSX. Thanks again and I look forward to updates from you soon! :) -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |
|
From: Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...> - 2010-05-26 08:07:08
|
On 26 May 2010 09:54, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Darren! > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...> wrote: >> Hi Dean, >> >> On 26 May 2010 08:00, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: >>> >>> Tests from the Linux users would be very much appreciated. >> >> Sounds good. Can you include a link please? I might be able to run the tests >> on linux later today. >> > > Sorry about that, I was assuming everyone knew. :) > > http://github.com/mikhailberis/cpp-netlib -- you can clone the git > repository or get a fork of your own on github too and fix things in > case I broke anything on your fork, then ask me to pull you changes if > there are any required. > > If any part is unclear please let me know so that I can respond soon as I can. > >> Cheers, > > Thanks and have a great day! > > -- > Dean Michael Berris > deanberris.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi guys, Great to see some activity on this list again. I've recently bought a MacBook Pro, thus I can test the code on an OS X machine. Regards, Jeroen |
7 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
