Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Comments about the HTTP client interface

[Divye K. <div...@gm...>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...>wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I have some questions about the way HTTP requests are made using the
> current interface, specifically this (taken from the http_1_0_test.cpp):
>
>     using namespace boost::network;
>     http::request request("http://www.boost.org/");
>     http::client client_;
>     http::response response_;
>     response_ = client_.get(request);
>
>
> What exactly is the role of the client here?  I'm a little confused by the
> syntax because it reads as though you're trying to make a get request to an
> HTTP client.  Would it perhaps be better to rename http::client to
> http::connection?
>

Currently, I read the above code as:
1. frame a request for resource http://www.boost.org/
2. Create a client that handles http requests/responses
3. Get the resource specified by the request and provide a response.

However, I do admit that client.head(request) and client.put(request) don't
seem to be too intuitive in that respect.


> Secondly, why is the domain passed as an argument to the http::request
> constructor?  To me, this doesn't feel like the right unit of encapsulation.
>
> Does the following example code make more sense?
>
>     using namespace boost::network;
>     http::connection c("http://www.boost.org");
>     http::request request1("/users/news/version_1_36_0");
>     http::response response1 = c.get(request);
>     http::request request2("/cgi-bin/path");
>     request2 << body("post_body");
>     http::response response2 = c.post(request2);
>
> Two observations about this:
> The current implementation creates a new socket for each request that is
> made, whereas the above suggestion allows a socket to remain open for
> multiple requests.  Additionally, the URI processing is currently done
> inside the request constructor.  I think it would be better to re-factor
> this into a separate package.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

Glyn

I agree with the plus point of having a socket remain open for multiple
requests but the syntax suggested seems to separate the domain name and the
relative path of the resource. I wouldn't like to keep track of which domain
is associated with which domain. Also, this breaks encapsulation because a
function that takes only a http::request cannot determine where the resource
is located and which protocol is to be used. A part of that useful
information lies in the connection object. In my head, a resource is
completely specified only when its complete url/uri is available and in that
respect, the request object is underspecified.

Just my thoughts,
Divye


-- 
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a
cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
My official web site: http://people.iitr.ernet.in/shp/061305/
Webmaster: http://www.drkapoorsclinic.com
Blog: http://divyekapoor.blogspot.com