From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2010-09-14 07:09:12
|
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: >> >> Secondly I must ask you to read, >> and re-read the RFC and to make sure you follow it (I've had a quick >> glance at the code you've committed and already spotted a deviation, >> for which I've filed an issue at github). >> > > Yes, thanks. I however would like to deal with the RFC issues later, > just as soon as I can parse a valid narrow subset of the RFC. My aim > is really to get something that will allow me to just parse the "known > good" incoming data in an incremental manner. I will however base test > inputs on the RFC, so that might allow me to go RFC-compliant in the > tests, while the implementation might be narrower than the full RFC > implementation. > In this light, I've fixed the issue you filed (#14) with regards to the HTTP version parsing. I've also finished the incremental parsing of the status message and headers. What remains is a body parser that should be able to understand chunked transfer encoding. I'm not racking my brain with that yet, but I will be implementing a simplistic incremental parser. This will be the basis too of a streaming client parser for the responses. I'm also looking at changing the regex-based implementation of the existing synchronous client to use this restartable parser and remove the dependency on Boost.Regex in the near future. Hopefully things don't break when I introduce the incremental parsing to the synchronous client implementation. ;) Have a great one guys and I definitely hope this helps! -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com |