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

[Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...>]

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