cppcms-users

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

[<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.

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

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

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 06:10 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

I prefer to not placing too much weight on Artyom - the sole developer
of this marvelous project.  I asked myself from time to time this
question: "How could it be possible that a single man can complete a
full functioning framework in large scale of so high quality like
CppCMS?"

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.

My this comment then leads to one question: Why didn't I improve the
documentation for the benefit of other users in this community after I
finally understood the meanings of that part of documentation? Here are
my "reasons":

- English is not my native speaking language.
- I do not have sufficient confidence on my technical knowledge on
CppCMS to *correctly* improve its documentation.  I can not rule out the
possibility of misunderstanding CppCMS components.
- I have been too busy to feed back to this community.

My these reasons, "excuses" in another word,  in fact are where the
problems really lie -  If every CppCMS community member has his/her own
reasons for which he/she is unable to contribute to this project, it is
not good.  Lacking community contributor, the pace of project
improvement being slow is one obvious outcome.  Worse is the biggest
threat of this project's future - an one-man project.

I do not know why we have only one developer.  I can only guess the
possible cause - the adoption of this project has not been large due to
the following possible "trends":

1. Many web programmers flood to OS tied applications for portable
devices.
2. Many web programmers embrace NODE JS.
3. The learning curve of C++ is too steep for many web programmers.

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. 
When this comes true, it means that the CppCMS adoption grows.  Once the
adoption grows, real good programmers will start to contribute to CppCMS
project. Most important of all, do not let this bright future happen too
late.

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

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow

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

[<ano...@op...>]

Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port it to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.

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

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

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 10:21 PM, ano...@op... wrote:
> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port it
> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.

Hats off to you!

Best Regards,
CN

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

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

[sergey l. <ccp...@gm...>]

fyi found today c++ mvc framework in active development state
http://www.treefrogframework.org/. development going on github (what we
asked artyom many times), epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ... it's
really sad that cppcms almost died ...

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <ano...@op...> wrote:

> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port it
> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 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

[Marius C. <mf...@gm...>]

 I'm just not sure about the efficiency of treefrog. I've seen some
basic tests that put it in a not so good light (
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r11&hw=peak&test=db
) . If a C++ framework seems to be doing so bad in performance
compared to things like Java and is even behind LUA and PHP in some
cases than what's the purpose of having it done in C++ ?
 I'm not sure how cppcms would perform in this test but I'm hoping it
would perform better.

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), epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
> better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ... it's
> really sad that cppcms almost died ...
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <ano...@op...> wrote:
>>
>> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port it
>> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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

I have moved on to Lapis web framework. http://leafo.net/lapis/

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Marius Cirsta <mf...@gm...> wrote:

>  I'm just not sure about the efficiency of treefrog. I've seen some
> basic tests that put it in a not so good light (
> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r11&hw=peak&test=db
> ) . If a C++ framework seems to be doing so bad in performance
> compared to things like Java and is even behind LUA and PHP in some
> cases than what's the purpose of having it done in C++ ?
>  I'm not sure how cppcms would perform in this test but I'm hoping it
> would perform better.
>
> 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), epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
> > better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ... it's
> > really sad that cppcms almost died ...
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <ano...@op...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port it
> >> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> > 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 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
>



-- 
Respect,
Shiv Shankar Dayal

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

[sergey l. <ccp...@gm...>]

as far as i know round-11 was done before optimisation in frog core and
thats why there are no results in round-12 and I really dont like QT in
core of frog framework.
yeah it will be very interesting to see how cppcms perfoms, because GO
results in round-12 make me cry.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Marius Cirsta <mf...@gm...> wrote:

>  I'm just not sure about the efficiency of treefrog. I've seen some
> basic tests that put it in a not so good light (
> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r11&hw=peak&test=db
> ) . If a C++ framework seems to be doing so bad in performance
> compared to things like Java and is even behind LUA and PHP in some
> cases than what's the purpose of having it done in C++ ?
>  I'm not sure how cppcms would perform in this test but I'm hoping it
> would perform better.
>
> 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), epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
> > better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ... it's
> > really sad that cppcms almost died ...
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <ano...@op...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port it
> >> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> > 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 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

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

Most of the solutions will sit behind Nginx/Apache/Lighttpd thus Lapis
would benefit there as it is embedded in Nginx.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:21 PM, sergey lavrov <ccp...@gm...>
wrote:

> as far as i know round-11 was done before optimisation in frog core and
> thats why there are no results in round-12 and I really dont like QT in
> core of frog framework.
> yeah it will be very interesting to see how cppcms perfoms, because GO
> results in round-12 make me cry.
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Marius Cirsta <mf...@gm...> wrote:
>
>>  I'm just not sure about the efficiency of treefrog. I've seen some
>> basic tests that put it in a not so good light (
>> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r11&hw=peak&test=db
>> ) . If a C++ framework seems to be doing so bad in performance
>> compared to things like Java and is even behind LUA and PHP in some
>> cases than what's the purpose of having it done in C++ ?
>>  I'm not sure how cppcms would perform in this test but I'm hoping it
>> would perform better.
>>
>> 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), epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
>> > better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ... it's
>> > really sad that cppcms almost died ...
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <ano...@op...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port
>> it
>> >> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 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
>
>


-- 
Respect,
Shiv Shankar Dayal

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

[Marius C. <mf...@gm...>]

 I like Qt but I don't think it's a very good idea to use for
something like this where maximum performance is the first priority.
Qt is just adds extra overhead and it's just not optimized for this
kind of things because it doesn't really need to be for most of the Qt
use cases.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:51 PM, sergey lavrov <ccp...@gm...> wrote:
> as far as i know round-11 was done before optimisation in frog core and
> thats why there are no results in round-12 and I really dont like QT in core
> of frog framework.
> yeah it will be very interesting to see how cppcms perfoms, because GO
> results in round-12 make me cry.
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Marius Cirsta <mf...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>>  I'm just not sure about the efficiency of treefrog. I've seen some
>> basic tests that put it in a not so good light (
>> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r11&hw=peak&test=db
>> ) . If a C++ framework seems to be doing so bad in performance
>> compared to things like Java and is even behind LUA and PHP in some
>> cases than what's the purpose of having it done in C++ ?
>>  I'm not sure how cppcms would perform in this test but I'm hoping it
>> would perform better.
>>
>> 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), epoll/thread, two template engines, db access,
>> > better license, has all features that cppcms has or even more ... it's
>> > really sad that cppcms almost died ...
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <ano...@op...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Just what I want add - I am very motivated to improve CppCMS and port
>> >> it
>> >> to C++11, and all what needed - new branch, where I can send patches.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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...>]

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

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

[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

[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
>

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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