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

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

On 28 May 2010 05:49, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote:

> 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. ;)
>

+2 for this.


>
> > 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 will do, in a few weeks.  The source is already at
http://github.com/glynos/cpp-netlib in branch xmpp for anyone who wants to
take a look.

>>
> >> 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. :)
>

OK!

>
> > 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
>

I think that's possible inside the scope.

Just a question about the MIME implementation: there was a talk at BoostCon
about this, is possible to find out any more about this?  A video or a
transcript?  I'd be interested to learn more about this.


>
> 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.
>

after 0.9 we can go to 0.10, 0.11, etc.  It doesn't have to be decimal.