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

[Glyn M. <gly...@gm...>]

Hi Dean and Divye,

2008/8/28 Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...>

> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Divye Kapoor <div...@gm...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>     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.
> >
>
> This is the intended interpretation which I was going for. :-)
>

In my mind, you send a GET to a server, not the client.  When I write code
like this I *am* the client, I don't *use* a client.  If I'm the only one
being anal about this then I'll let this point go :)


> > However, I do admit that client.head(request) and client.put(request)
> don't
> > seem to be too intuitive in that respect.
> >
>
> I had been thinking about that before I even started, and I was
> thinking more to provide a compile-time and explicit mapping between
> the interfaces and the semantics of the HTTP protocol. More
> importantly, I was thinking of alternatives which were:
>
> 1. Encapsulating the 'method' into the http::request object.
> 2. Making the client accept the method as a string.
> 3. Using the "push" abstraction to convey the action.
>
> I decided against all three because:
>
...
I see your reasoning behind all these.


>
> I hope at least this can make it into the documentation or in a
> rationale document somehow... ;-)
>

Yep, this was why I opened this subject.


>
> HTH!
>

It does, thanks.
G