cppcms-users — Disussions of users of CppCMS

[Cppcms-users] Threaded access to SQLite

[Josh H. <jos...@ni...>]

Is connection pooling expected to work for the SQLite backend?  When I
spawn three threads and try to connect to the database from each, one
of the connections will succeed and the other two will fail.  On the
two that fail, I get an error saying "database is locked."  This
happens whether I am using the connection pool directly (via
cppdb::pool) or indirectly (via @pool_size).

[Cppcms-users] (no subject)

[Patrick W. <pat...@ra...>]

Hi,
I would like to know if anyone could give me some insight on how to configure cppcms with mod_fcgid. The fastcgi module is not anymore provided with centos, which is my server's distribution. I would be very grateful.
Another more trivial question is anyone could get the syntaxhighlighter working? I downloaded version 3.0.83, added the content of the directory to /media/sh, enabled it in the config.js file ("syntax_highlighter" : "/media/sh",) and changed the main.cpp source code to match the names of the javascript and css files. But there is no syntaxhighlighting. I wrapped the source with the tag <pre> and </pre> in the publishing text area form.
Thank you.
--
Patrick Wolf

[Cppcms-users] (no subject)

[Andrey <par...@gm...>]

Hello, Al
Why cppcms with single asynchronous application generates 20 threads after
start?
(e.g. examples/chat)

[Cppcms-users] stop accepting incoming connections

[Andrey <par...@gm...>]

Hello,Artyom.
cppcms allows applications to use central event loop and many useful
functionality within booster::aio, but all of this stuff depends on the
main function - to accept client connections. If we want to stop accepting
new connections, all of our functionality breaks. I have asynchronouse
application, which utilize pool of workers, curl (multi interface) thread
within libev, and I want to apply async database work within one of exising
loops - libev or cppcms. I can't move all of my asynchronouse tasks to
libev, because i need to send client response inside cppcms loop. There
should be a way to stop accepting incoming connections, process all the
tasks within event loop, send all responces for the array of detached http
contexts and finally exit.
Thanks.

Andrey L

Re: [Cppcms-users] Update "generic_filter" patch

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

Just to make sure,have you seen that current CppCMS 1.2 solution:

http://cppcms.com/wikipp/en/page/cppcms_1x_templates_comm#Default.Escape.Filter.Block

I remember I liked your idea and implemented it. But also added more
generic "filter" block so you can modify the behavior withing specific
scope.

Note I see that you separate the url and default filter which is
indeed a very good idea, also having default filter on view level can
be useful as well - not on some scope inside a template block.

Also the patch clearly was not build against trunk version of CppCMS
where 1.2 is now.

I suggest to merge the modifications with 1.2 that already contains
support of <% filter .. %> block that does major part of job. Probably
extend it with url_filter support and add filter on view level.

Thanks,
  Artyom




On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@be...> wrote:
> Hi Artyom,
> this is a slightly extended version of a patch I send you a while ago.
> This includes an actual test case now. The goal is to make it easier to
> use the template framework for non-HTML output. For this purpose, a view
> can use the new arguments to override the default filter. There is one
> issue in that the static parts of a URL expression can't be quoted,
> which is difficult to work-around with more intrusive code changes. As I
> generally don't use the URL tag in non-HTML output, it doesn't matter to
> me.
>
> Joerg
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>

[Cppcms-users] Update "generic_filter" patch

[Joerg S. <jo...@be...>]

Hi Artyom,
this is a slightly extended version of a patch I send you a while ago.
This includes an actual test case now. The goal is to make it easier to
use the template framework for non-HTML output. For this purpose, a view
can use the new arguments to override the default filter. There is one
issue in that the static parts of a URL expression can't be quoted,
which is difficult to work-around with more intrusive code changes. As I
generally don't use the URL tag in non-HTML output, it doesn't matter to
me.

Joerg

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Lee E. <le...@el...>]

As someone who once made a very minor contribution - i can testify that
Artyom accepted it nicely, and got it inside
and there was no need for write access for it

as far as git is concerned - the fact that Artyom runs the project in SVN
did not stopped me from making my changes using git, and then sending him a
patch

I haven't used CppCMS for a while - but i keep looking at it, and from what
i see - it grows slowly

Artyom i do think you should consider making the effort to move, or sync
the project into github - not for the source control, but for the community
tools - it will help grow the community faster
and with that also contributions will grow

lee

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:52 PM Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@be...> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 08:13:03PM +0100, Jan Kalmar wrote:
> > Most people use git, so Artyom if nothing then at least *please* consider
> > moving to git, it would make easier for people to contibute. You are the
> > creator but you also have users and they want to have git (among other
> > things).
>
> *sigh* I am really tired of hearing this "I need git to contribute" junk
> over and over again on different projects. If you want to contribute,
> send patches. If they are good enough, consider asking Artyom if you can
> get write access to the repository. He might or might not give it to
> you. Now look at the list again, does the VCS appear anywhere on that
> list? No, since it doesn't really change anything.
>
> Joerg
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

>> For the session-integration - there were recent changes in the API and
>> rework needed for PHP, Asp.Net, Java and Python modules to reflect
>> updated API.
>
> I have little knowledge about the new "session-integration" API. My
> instinct tells me that I am unlikely to need these features in
> foreseeable future.  If my instinct is correct, I am worried about the
> size of new CppCMS.
>
> Will there be compiler directives for me to disable these incoming
> unwanted features to avoid a bloated CppCMS executable?
>

On the CppCMS side it is barely tiny C wrapper of C++ session functionality.

The "bloat" comes on external project that isn't compiled to CppCMS that load
cppcms so/dll C API.

So it isn't expected to create any significant addition. If you still
want to disable it
you are welcome to write a tiny patch that removes this stuff from
compilation/testing.

Artyom

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[CN <cn...@fa...>]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 09:31 PM, Artyom Beilis wrote:
> The plugin stuff is almost complete mostly pending documentation.
> 
> For the session-integration - there were recent changes in the API and
> rework needed for PHP, Asp.Net, Java and Python modules to reflect
> updated API.

I have little knowledge about the new "session-integration" API. My
instinct tells me that I am unlikely to need these features in
foreseeable future.  If my instinct is correct, I am worried about the
size of new CppCMS.

Will there be compiler directives for me to disable these incoming
unwanted features to avoid a bloated CppCMS executable?

Best Regards,
CN

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Access all of your messages and folders
                          wherever you are

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Shiv Shankar Dayal
<shi...@gm...> wrote:
> Is there an issue/todo list which is remaining in 1.2.0.0 release? I can
> find sometime and hack a bit of code if others are willing to review it.

Yes: http://cppcms.com/wikipp/en/page/cppcms_1x_tasks#CppCMS.1.1.0.-.Next.Release

The plugin stuff is almost complete mostly pending documentation.

For the session-integration - there were recent changes in the API and
rework needed for PHP, Asp.Net, Java and Python modules to reflect
updated API. Also what is MOST important is to write a standard unit
test in Web-Browser JavaScript and implement
it for CppCMS session and preferably for all these 4 modules so when
writing a new module I just can run it as as.

Also virtual hosts are something I want to do for a long time and
don't get to it.

Other than that it is quite ready.

Artyom

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Shiv S. D. <shi...@gm...>]

Is there an issue/todo list which is remaining in 1.2.0.0 release? I can
find sometime and hack a bit of code if others are willing to review it.

Artyom,

Would you have time to review the code written? How do I sign the agreement
for handing over the code to you?

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Hery Maminirina <hma...@gm...>
wrote:

> Hi anonymous0,
>
>
> Very interesting. We are excited to see all improvements of this "new
> CppCMS 2.0" compared to the actual.
>
> Regards.
>
> Hery.
>
> 2016-10-28 1:10 GMT+03:00 <ano...@op...>:
>
>> Hi Artyom,
>>
>> I read your position about migration to C++11
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcms/mailman/message/35292236/
>>
>> BTW, I have proposal to preparing release CppCMS 2.0 with breaking API.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> 1. We can migrate to C++11 (or C++14).
>>
>> 2. We can drop some booster classes, and using pure STL and new language
>> features. For example, migrate to std::thread, smart-pointers, etc.
>>
>> 3. We can clean-up code, make it more robust, cleaner and faster (rvo,
>> constexpr, lambdas, syntax sugar).
>>
>> 4. We can completely drop old and deprecated stuff.
>>
>> 5. We can continue support 1.x for those who need C++0x.
>>
>> [*we - you and community]
>>
>>
>> Of course, it will little bit harder because of needing to backport
>> bugfixes and some features into 1.x.
>>
>> If you don't want do it, then please answer - how many years you want to
>> wait before CppCMS will migrate to C++11?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
>> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
>> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
>> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
>> http://sdm.link/telerik
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cppcms-users mailing list
>> Cpp...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
> Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
> With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
> Training and support from Colfax.
> Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>
>


-- 
Respect,
Shiv Shankar Dayal

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Hery M. <hma...@gm...>]

Hi anonymous0,


Very interesting. We are excited to see all improvements of this "new
CppCMS 2.0" compared to the actual.

Regards.

Hery.

2016-10-28 1:10 GMT+03:00 <ano...@op...>:

> Hi Artyom,
>
> I read your position about migration to C++11
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcms/mailman/message/35292236/
>
> BTW, I have proposal to preparing release CppCMS 2.0 with breaking API.
>
> Rationale:
>
> 1. We can migrate to C++11 (or C++14).
>
> 2. We can drop some booster classes, and using pure STL and new language
> features. For example, migrate to std::thread, smart-pointers, etc.
>
> 3. We can clean-up code, make it more robust, cleaner and faster (rvo,
> constexpr, lambdas, syntax sugar).
>
> 4. We can completely drop old and deprecated stuff.
>
> 5. We can continue support 1.x for those who need C++0x.
>
> [*we - you and community]
>
>
> Of course, it will little bit harder because of needing to backport
> bugfixes and some features into 1.x.
>
> If you don't want do it, then please answer - how many years you want to
> wait before CppCMS will migrate to C++11?
>
> Regards.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Stanimir M. <sta...@zo...>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Artyom Beilis <art...@gm...> wrote:
>  >>> Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?
>>>> [...]
>>>> The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
>>>> twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
>>>> my setup is not satisfying.
>>>
>>> First of all is it internal release or you deliver to the SW to clients?
>>>
>> Almost all are internal, but I don't know what "SW" abbreviates to.
>> Maybe "Service Website"?
>
> SW - software
>

I had to keep it simple and not search for urban dictionary :)

>> There is one app I made for clients (since I do outsourcing) that I
>> had to make it use dynamic linkage, because I think that the LGPL
>> requires it.
>> The app and source code is all theirs and not mine. It is a document
>> archival app. They sell the service and storage of the documents to
>> their clients.
>> Is that SW that you are talking about?
>>
>> I might have even violated your license in some way? :(
>> I had to ask that question before I start using CppCMS for this assignment.
>>
>
> You distribute your application to client with the source code
> so your client can build it - no need for dynamic linking
> as you provide means to modify CppCMS... no problems.
>
> If your client provides web service without actually delivering
> the bundle to his clients - keeping the software on his own
> server - no problem as well.
>
> If your client gives the software  to his clients without giving
> source code or means to build it than he needs to
> provide dynamic linking protecting the freedom to modify CppCMS.
>
I fit exactly in the previous two scenarios. This one will be pointed
immediately to my clients in case they decide to sell the software.
>
>> Maybe my confusion with all those licenses comes from the missing
>> understanding of the limitations they pursue and why!
>
> There is great GPL FAQ... it answers most of stuff.
>
I read it long ago, but without concrete examples it was very
difficult to relate to my questions.

>> >From the text of LGPL is clear that dynamic linkage is allowed and now
>> you say that there is a way to use it even with a static one.
>>
> technically you can even distribute compiled objects ".o" files and means
> to link with static CppCMS .a ... as long as you give the freedom to modify
> CppCMS library - of course it isn't really feasable.
>
> The "test" isn't I need to link dynamically but can I modify CppCMS library.
>

This explanation is the one I was looking for. Thank you!

>>> IMHO most of users somewhat afraid of going to quite complex code
>>> and I'm not sure CppCMS has enough buzz around it to convert the
>>> quantity of users to quality of contributions.
>>>
>> In my own experience, contributions are a bit scary because you are
>> supposed to contribute fully functional feature.
>> An example applicable to CppCMS is that I made a bazel build for it's
>> trunk (see https://bazel.build), but I didn't consider contributing it
>> yet, because it is not fully and generally working solution.
>>
>> This reminds me of why github could be preferred and pushed by so many
>> people. It is easier to contribute even with half baked solutions that
>> get better over longer period of time.
>>
>
> It depends, for example Lee Elenbaas contributed a great patch
> for templates compiler, it come without tests and I needed to
> do some small fixes - but it was important and I accepted it
> gladly.
>
> So it isn't black and white - but yes  I do want complete solutions.
>
>>> So I consider some kind of exception of typical use case of LGPL
>>> library - i.e. allow static linking. (like wxWindows exception)
>>>
>> I just read more for wxWindows exception. It seams the exception is
>> only when you deliver/destribute the binary form of the product.
>> Is this applicable for web framework library at all?
>>
>> After all wxWindows is cross plafrom GUI library that is supposed to
>> be distributed as part of a desktop application, while the web
>> apps/sites are hosted services.
>>
>
> Yes it is applicable and I explain why.
>
> If you build your own web service/site, host it on your servers - do
> don't need to
> link dynamically or even release changes you made in CppCMS
> because you don't distribute your software.
>
> However if you distribute some software bundle with web service based
> on CppCMS you need to link dynamically/provide means for modification.
>
> More than that - if you distribute a product - lets say some raspberry pi
> or some product - lets say a robot with embedded web interface based
> on CppCMS than you need not only link dynamically but also provide
> the **access** to the device so you can modify the dll/so, on the device
> itself.
>
> This is usually when CppCMS users opt for commercial license :-)

It is all clear now for me. Thanks a lot.

>
> Artyom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

 >>> Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?
>>> [...]
>>> The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
>>> twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
>>> my setup is not satisfying.
>>
>> First of all is it internal release or you deliver to the SW to clients?
>>
> Almost all are internal, but I don't know what "SW" abbreviates to.
> Maybe "Service Website"?

SW - software

> There is one app I made for clients (since I do outsourcing) that I
> had to make it use dynamic linkage, because I think that the LGPL
> requires it.
> The app and source code is all theirs and not mine. It is a document
> archival app. They sell the service and storage of the documents to
> their clients.
> Is that SW that you are talking about?
>
> I might have even violated your license in some way? :(
> I had to ask that question before I start using CppCMS for this assignment.
>

You distribute your application to client with the source code
so your client can build it - no need for dynamic linking
as you provide means to modify CppCMS... no problems.

If your client provides web service without actually delivering
the bundle to his clients - keeping the software on his own
server - no problem as well.

If your client gives the software  to his clients without giving
source code or means to build it than he needs to
provide dynamic linking protecting the freedom to modify CppCMS.


> Maybe my confusion with all those licenses comes from the missing
> understanding of the limitations they pursue and why!

There is great GPL FAQ... it answers most of stuff.

> >From the text of LGPL is clear that dynamic linkage is allowed and now
> you say that there is a way to use it even with a static one.
>
technically you can even distribute compiled objects ".o" files and means
to link with static CppCMS .a ... as long as you give the freedom to modify
CppCMS library - of course it isn't really feasable.

The "test" isn't I need to link dynamically but can I modify CppCMS library.

>> IMHO most of users somewhat afraid of going to quite complex code
>> and I'm not sure CppCMS has enough buzz around it to convert the
>> quantity of users to quality of contributions.
>>
> In my own experience, contributions are a bit scary because you are
> supposed to contribute fully functional feature.
> An example applicable to CppCMS is that I made a bazel build for it's
> trunk (see https://bazel.build), but I didn't consider contributing it
> yet, because it is not fully and generally working solution.
>
> This reminds me of why github could be preferred and pushed by so many
> people. It is easier to contribute even with half baked solutions that
> get better over longer period of time.
>

It depends, for example Lee Elenbaas contributed a great patch
for templates compiler, it come without tests and I needed to
do some small fixes - but it was important and I accepted it
gladly.

So it isn't black and white - but yes  I do want complete solutions.

>> So I consider some kind of exception of typical use case of LGPL
>> library - i.e. allow static linking. (like wxWindows exception)
>>
> I just read more for wxWindows exception. It seams the exception is
> only when you deliver/destribute the binary form of the product.
> Is this applicable for web framework library at all?
>
> After all wxWindows is cross plafrom GUI library that is supposed to
> be distributed as part of a desktop application, while the web
> apps/sites are hosted services.
>

Yes it is applicable and I explain why.

If you build your own web service/site, host it on your servers - do
don't need to
link dynamically or even release changes you made in CppCMS
because you don't distribute your software.

However if you distribute some software bundle with web service based
on CppCMS you need to link dynamically/provide means for modification.

More than that - if you distribute a product - lets say some raspberry pi
or some product - lets say a robot with embedded web interface based
on CppCMS than you need not only link dynamically but also provide
the **access** to the device so you can modify the dll/so, on the device
itself.

This is usually when CppCMS users opt for commercial license :-)

Artyom

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Joerg S. <jo...@be...>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 04:09:29PM +0200, Stanimir Mladenov wrote:
> There is one app I made for clients (since I do outsourcing) that I
> had to make it use dynamic linkage, because I think that the LGPL
> requires it.

The LGPL generally allows two ways of distributing a program linked
against it:
(1) You can provide a dynamically linked application and the dynamic
version of the LGPL library. On request, you have to provide the sources
for the LGPL library and all potential modifications.

(2) You can provide a statically linked application and the object files
necessary for relinking the application with a patched version of the
library. You can assume binary compatibility of the ABI. For the LGPL
library, the same considerations as under (1) apply.

As usual, IANAL and if you are not sure after careful study of the
license text, you might want to contact one for clarification.

E.g. in my case, all patches I am using in my version of CppCMS are
either submitted already or public in pkgsrc. One of them, the generic
filter support in templates is currently not upstream or committed in
pkgsrc, need to fix that at some point. But Artyom got a mail with it at
some point, so the license obligation are fulfilled :)

Joerg

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Stanimir M. <sta...@zo...>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Artyom Beilis <art...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?
>> [...]
>> The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
>> twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
>> my setup is not satisfying.
>
> First of all is it internal release or you deliver to the SW to clients?
>
Almost all are internal, but I don't know what "SW" abbreviates to.
Maybe "Service Website"?
There is one app I made for clients (since I do outsourcing) that I
had to make it use dynamic linkage, because I think that the LGPL
requires it.
The app and source code is all theirs and not mine. It is a document
archival app. They sell the service and storage of the documents to
their clients.
Is that SW that you are talking about?

I might have even violated your license in some way? :(
I had to ask that question before I start using CppCMS for this assignment.

Maybe my confusion with all those licenses comes from the missing
understanding of the limitations they pursue and why!
>From the text of LGPL is clear that dynamic linkage is allowed and now
you say that there is a way to use it even with a static one.

> If it is internal you have no obligations whatsoever to link dynamically
> as you can always replace the library by rebuilding the SW. For external
> release it is different.
>
>>  - current license sounds like you want to be the only developer of
>> CppCMS, so that you can earn some living of it through the commercial
>> license.
>
> To be honest no. I don't want to be the only developer also I had some
> significant incomes from CppCMS - but not related to licensing at all.
>
> This way or other CppCMS can't support me and my family.
I wish it could!
>
> However, I want to keep Copyrights belong to me because this way
> I can actually __change the license__ - if for example one day I will want
> to change the license to something more permissive. Without being
> sole owner of all copyrights on CppCMS code I can't do it.
>
> That is why every contribution requires copyright transfer on submitted code.
>
That makes more sense now.

>> This is just fine, every one should get paid for such a
>> brilliant work. That may be the unspoken reason until now for missing
>> contributions from other developers.
>>
>
> IMHO most of users somewhat afraid of going to quite complex code
> and I'm not sure CppCMS has enough buzz around it to convert the
> quantity of users to quality of contributions.
>
In my own experience, contributions are a bit scary because you are
supposed to contribute fully functional feature.
An example applicable to CppCMS is that I made a bazel build for it's
trunk (see https://bazel.build), but I didn't consider contributing it
yet, because it is not fully and generally working solution.

This reminds me of why github could be preferred and pushed by so many
people. It is easier to contribute even with half baked solutions that
get better over longer period of time.

>> I am a bit afraid that you may consider my request for rude or that
>> you should not get paid for CppCMS. To the contrary, if you get paid,
>> CppCMS will get better because of your increased efforts to develop
>> it.
>
> No, it isn't rude at all, it is more than legitimate request. In fact once
> CppDB was LGPLv3 licensed now due to request I changed it to Boost/MIT.
>
> However....
>
> I don't think that frameworks of such a scale should be released under
> permissive license like MIT, Boost or Apache...
>
> So I consider some kind of exception of typical use case of LGPL
> library - i.e. allow static linking. (like wxWindows exception)
>
I just read more for wxWindows exception. It seams the exception is
only when you deliver/destribute the binary form of the product.
Is this applicable for web framework library at all?

After all wxWindows is cross plafrom GUI library that is supposed to
be distributed as part of a desktop application, while the web
apps/sites are hosted services.

> But I still hadn't decided yet,
>
> So for now I'll keep LGPLv3...
>
> Regards,
>    Artyom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users

Thank you so much for your answers and of course for CppCMS in general!

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

>
> Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?
> [...]
> The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
> twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
> my setup is not satisfying.

First of all is it internal release or you deliver to the SW to clients?

If it is internal you have no obligations whatsoever to link dynamically
as you can always replace the library by rebuilding the SW. For external
release it is different.

>  - current license sounds like you want to be the only developer of
> CppCMS, so that you can earn some living of it through the commercial
> license.

To be honest no. I don't want to be the only developer also I had some
significant incomes from CppCMS - but not related to licensing at all.

This way or other CppCMS can't support me and my family.

However, I want to keep Copyrights belong to me because this way
I can actually __change the license__ - if for example one day I will want
to change the license to something more permissive. Without being
sole owner of all copyrights on CppCMS code I can't do it.

That is why every contribution requires copyright transfer on submitted code.

> This is just fine, every one should get paid for such a
> brilliant work. That may be the unspoken reason until now for missing
> contributions from other developers.
>

IMHO most of users somewhat afraid of going to quite complex code
and I'm not sure CppCMS has enough buzz around it to convert the
quantity of users to quality of contributions.

> I am a bit afraid that you may consider my request for rude or that
> you should not get paid for CppCMS. To the contrary, if you get paid,
> CppCMS will get better because of your increased efforts to develop
> it.

No, it isn't rude at all, it is more than legitimate request. In fact once
CppDB was LGPLv3 licensed now due to request I changed it to Boost/MIT.

However....

I don't think that frameworks of such a scale should be released under
permissive license like MIT, Boost or Apache...

So I consider some kind of exception of typical use case of LGPL
library - i.e. allow static linking. (like wxWindows exception)

But I still hadn't decided yet,

So for now I'll keep LGPLv3...

Regards,
   Artyom

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Hery M. <hma...@gm...>]

Hi Artyom,

>Don't make funeral too soon. It isn't dead at all.
> But the project is far from being dead.

I am very glad and happy to hear that the CppCMS project is far from
being dead.
Very very good news 😊.

Thank you.

Hery.


2016-10-29 21:03 GMT+03:00 Artyom Beilis <art...@gm...>:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, sergey lavrov <ccp...@gm...>
> wrote:
>
> > fyi found today c++ mvc framework in active development state
> > http://www.treefrogframework.org/. development going on github (what we
> > asked artyom many times),
>
> Give me a brake... but this is just an excuse.
>
> If you want to contribute
> do it and you'll get all you need and if the contributors community perfers
> git it will get it. Now the contributors community is ME... so I choose
> what ever I need - espesially since I have testing infrastructure that
> uses SVN and switching to git would require me to spend lots
> of work hours on it instead of actually dealing with CppCMS.
>
> So stop complaining and staring contributing!
> You want a task? I'll give you ;-)
>
> > epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
> > better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ...
>
> I know it I even remember looking on it and reviewing some code
> discovering some basic
> design issues (race condition in session management) talking to the
> designer...
>
> It integrated lots of ides from CppCMS in its own way but IMHO
> didn't come close to the maturity of CppCMS and its documentation....
> CppCMS's one is bright shine ;-)
>
> > it's really sad that cppcms almost died ...
> >
>
> Don't make funeral too soon. It isn't dead at all. I just manage to work
> on it in bursts when my personal life allows. All the good stuff
> is in trunk and from what I see most of users run on CppCMS trunk.
>
> Because I can't live off CppCMS and I spend the time I can on it and there
> are periods I can't. But the project is far from being dead. There was
> huge work
> done about 1/2 a year ago that brought lots of good stuff and I don't
> see complains.
>
> So instead declaring it dead and making up excuses why you can't help
> get your hands dirty in C++ and start writing the code.
>
> Artyom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Stanimir M. <sta...@zo...>]

Since this thread looks to be mainly for requests, here is mine:

Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?

I am not asking blindly, so here are my arguments:

 - you wrote that in the FAQ of cppcms
http://cppcms.com/wikipp/en/page/faq#Do.you.plan.to.change.the.framework.s.license.in.the.future.
 - my usage of CppCMS is not advance at all (think for me as an
average Joe Coder) and maybe I had to chose another framework years
ago because of that. Even that, I can't express enough praise for
CppCMS. It is the most easiest c++ framework that was available when I
started to use it and that is still true. Contrary to the above
documentation complains, I found the docs easy to follow. All my code
is c++1y and CppCMS works pretty good despite some deprecated
warnings.
However, recently I started to use Docker containers and CI
(Continuous Integration), where all apps are build and linked
statically.
The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
my setup is not satisfying.
 - current license sounds like you want to be the only developer of
CppCMS, so that you can earn some living of it through the commercial
license. This is just fine, every one should get paid for such a
brilliant work. That may be the unspoken reason until now for missing
contributions from other developers.

I am a bit afraid that you may consider my request for rude or that
you should not get paid for CppCMS. To the contrary, if you get paid,
CppCMS will get better because of your increased efforts to develop
it.
Also, note that it is just a request and maybe a suggestion. I will
not move away of CppCMS if you don't do it, even that my use of this
framework is pretty simple and you won't lose a big deal of a user if
i do :)

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Joerg S. <jo...@be...>]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 08:13:03PM +0100, Jan Kalmar wrote:
> Most people use git, so Artyom if nothing then at least *please* consider
> moving to git, it would make easier for people to contibute. You are the
> creator but you also have users and they want to have git (among other
> things).

*sigh* I am really tired of hearing this "I need git to contribute" junk
over and over again on different projects. If you want to contribute,
send patches. If they are good enough, consider asking Artyom if you can
get write access to the repository. He might or might not give it to
you. Now look at the list again, does the VCS appear anywhere on that
list? No, since it doesn't really change anything.

Joerg

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Jan K. <jan...@gm...>]

Hi,
I started to use cppcms only recently and so far it is great.
However compiling it on newer gcc gives you quite o lot off warnings about
using deprecated stuff, so supporting more modern compiler would be great.

Also on newer system I have one unit test constantly failing ( 105 -
test_locale_formatting (Failed) ) on my desktop opensuse but don't fail on
my ubuntu 14.04 server.

I can live without c++11 lamdas, but move constructors would be nice.

Personally I don't mind svn, I work in a company which do critical systems
and until last year used cvs :) and it was fine. We are still using cvs for
some projects, but slowly migrating to git.

Most people use git, so Artyom if nothing then at least *please* consider
moving to git, it would make easier for people to contibute. You are the
creator but you also have users and they want to have git (among other
things).

Overall it is a great framework, I searched the internet and found nothing
better and yes I tried TreeFrog and it was not that good, also looked at
Tntnet, Wt but cppcms is the winner.

Just an idea:
If ano...@op... is so eager to help and want a branch then
let him migrate this project to git ( if he wants a git branch ) and give
him c++11 branch this way we will all win, you will have a contributor and
someone who migrate the project to git, ano...@op... will
have a branch :) and most important we the users will have a great
framework which will get better and better.

Also there is this project:
https://github.com/allan-simon/cppcms-skeleton
So there are people who do stuff with cppcms, to know more just look at:
https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=cppcms&s=updated&type=Repositories&utf8=%E2%9C%93

BR
JK


2016-10-29 20:03 GMT+02:00 Artyom Beilis <art...@gm...>:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, sergey lavrov <ccp...@gm...>
> wrote:
>
> > fyi found today c++ mvc framework in active development state
> > http://www.treefrogframework.org/. development going on github (what we
> > asked artyom many times),
>
> Give me a brake... but this is just an excuse.
>
> If you want to contribute
> do it and you'll get all you need and if the contributors community perfers
> git it will get it. Now the contributors community is ME... so I choose
> what ever I need - espesially since I have testing infrastructure that
> uses SVN and switching to git would require me to spend lots
> of work hours on it instead of actually dealing with CppCMS.
>
> So stop complaining and staring contributing!
> You want a task? I'll give you ;-)
>
> > epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
> > better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ...
>
> I know it I even remember looking on it and reviewing some code
> discovering some basic
> design issues (race condition in session management) talking to the
> designer...
>
> It integrated lots of ides from CppCMS in its own way but IMHO
> didn't come close to the maturity of CppCMS and its documentation....
> CppCMS's one is bright shine ;-)
>
> > it's really sad that cppcms almost died ...
> >
>
> Don't make funeral too soon. It isn't dead at all. I just manage to work
> on it in bursts when my personal life allows. All the good stuff
> is in trunk and from what I see most of users run on CppCMS trunk.
>
> Because I can't live off CppCMS and I spend the time I can on it and there
> are periods I can't. But the project is far from being dead. There was
> huge work
> done about 1/2 a year ago that brought lots of good stuff and I don't
> see complains.
>
> So instead declaring it dead and making up excuses why you can't help
> get your hands dirty in C++ and start writing the code.
>
> Artyom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
>

[Cppcms-users] merging wikipp and cppblog

[Patrick W. <pat...@ra...>]

Hi,

I have come across your awesome framework and would like to use it for my website after having installed the wikicpp. My main concern is to change the view in order to make it « design responsive » and to include it together with the cppblog blog. When I change the sql schema so that I have a unique database there is a segment_fault. The author_id field appears to be the root cause.
Could anyone give some hintsights on how to do it?
Another more trivial question is Anyone could get the syntaxhighlighter working? I downloaded version 3.0.83, added the content of the directory to /media/sh, enabled it in the config.js file ("syntax_highlighter" : "/media/sh",) and changed the main.cpp source code to match the names of the javascript and css files. But there is no syntaxhighlighting. I wrapped the source with the tag <pre> and </pre> in the text area publishing form.

Thank you.
Patrick Wolf

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, sergey lavrov <ccp...@gm...> wrote:

> fyi found today c++ mvc framework in active development state
> http://www.treefrogframework.org/. development going on github (what we
> asked artyom many times),

Give me a brake... but this is just an excuse.

If you want to contribute
do it and you'll get all you need and if the contributors community perfers
git it will get it. Now the contributors community is ME... so I choose
what ever I need - espesially since I have testing infrastructure that
uses SVN and switching to git would require me to spend lots
of work hours on it instead of actually dealing with CppCMS.

So stop complaining and staring contributing!
You want a task? I'll give you ;-)

> epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
> better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ...

I know it I even remember looking on it and reviewing some code
discovering some basic
design issues (race condition in session management) talking to the designer...

It integrated lots of ides from CppCMS in its own way but IMHO
didn't come close to the maturity of CppCMS and its documentation....
CppCMS's one is bright shine ;-)

> it's really sad that cppcms almost died ...
>

Don't make funeral too soon. It isn't dead at all. I just manage to work
on it in bursts when my personal life allows. All the good stuff
is in trunk and from what I see most of users run on CppCMS trunk.

Because I can't live off CppCMS and I spend the time I can on it and there
are periods I can't. But the project is far from being dead. There was huge work
done about 1/2 a year ago that brought lots of good stuff and I don't
see complains.

So instead declaring it dead and making up excuses why you can't help
get your hands dirty in C++ and start writing the code.

Artyom

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

> However, I am not saying that I am absolutely comfortable with the
> quality of CppCMS documentation.  In fact, I sometimes spent hours
> reading the documentation struggling to understand the usage of only one
> class method, but in the end I had to guess and test it in order to get
> an idea of its functionality.  Therefore, if I can vote, I will place
> improving the quality of documentation as the first entry in the to-do
> list.
>

Unfortunately I agree on this.

I must say lots of contribution was done by the community in the wiki and
btw in the docs themselves. It is easier to do.

But what is more important is to ask if something is unclear or point it
out as stuff like this need to be documented.

>
> - English is not my native speaking language.

Neither it is my ;-)... guys constantly fix my bad English around.

> I have no idea what I can do about these "trends".  Perhaps the best we
> community members can do at this moment is making your own CppCMS
> applications great - so great that they make your businesses so
> successful that your organizations grow and expand and therefore begin
> to hire top end programmers to work exclusively on CppCMS framework.

EXACTLY...

>
> Please pardon me if you do not agree with my view points! After all,
> this is the 2 cents all I have at this moment.
>
> Best Regards,
> CN
>

Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:10 AM,  <ano...@op...> wrote:
> Hi Artyom,
>
> I read your position about migration to C++11
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcms/mailman/message/35292236/
>
> BTW, I have proposal to preparing release CppCMS 2.0 with breaking API.

If you read this message why do you ask? How do you address my concerns?

>
>
> 2. We can drop some booster classes, and using pure STL and new language features. For example, migrate to std::thread, smart-pointers, etc.

It wouldn't work standard library does not have 1/4 of what I need or
provides inconsistent functionality - even in basic threading library
- have you notices
for example shared lock and recursive shared lock ;-)... It is there
for purposes.

>
> 3. We can clean-up code, make it more robust, cleaner and faster (rvo, constexpr, lambdas, syntax sugar).
>

Not it wouldn't but in some special cases. Only stuff that really may
give some performance gain in C++11 is move constructor
the rest does not relay to performance.

> 4. We can completely drop old and deprecated stuff.
>
> 5. We can continue support 1.x for those who need C++0x.
>
> [*we - you and community]
>

This is exactly the core issue - we... it isn't we it is me... so far
there is virtually 0 contributions
by the community I have received only from very few users there.


>
> Of course, it will little bit harder because of needing to backport bugfixes and some features into 1.x.
>
> If you don't want do it, then please answer - how many years you want to wait before CppCMS will migrate to C++11?
>

As I explained I do want to support C++11 but without dropping C++03 support.

For example booster::callback and booster::function is 100% compatible
with C++11 lambdas.
Also what is "needed" is probably adding move constructor but not much.

Bottom line - in most of the cases I write using CppCMS I do write in C++11...

To be honest I have much urgent stuff to do with CppCMS rather than
waste the time on code migration.

http://cppcms.com/wikipp/en/page/cppcms_1x_tasks

Artyom