Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Poll: Next Features to Implement

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

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