Re: [Cppcms-users] Next CppCMS Feature Poll
Brought to you by:
artyom-beilis
From: Fernando F. <die...@gm...> - 2020-08-10 20:25:53
|
I vote for option 1. I have started to have many clients that require the use of websockets, unless I am missing something and can be used by reverse proxy. And on many occasions, websockets is the only option. Option 2, I have not needed it. Option 3, SSL can be implemented by reverse proxy so it doesn't seem a priority to me. Option 4, I have not had any problem with this, and compile my code in recent versions of C ++, and cppcms leave it in an older version without problems. Diego Fernando Rodríguez Fuentes *Desarrollador C++ Senior* Aranda Software Celular: +57 310 758 7242 Correo: die...@gm... El lun., 10 ago. 2020 a las 14:28, Martin Bürgmann (< mar...@gm...>) escribió: > Hello Artyom, > > I vote for option 4, because I think there will be great immediate benefit > from reducing compiler messages about deprecation and enabling many helpful > C++11 features. > One of these features would be range-based for loops. This would greatly > improve the `<% foreach %>` directive. > I once opened an issue about this but quickly came to realize that my > approach was flawed. I since could not get this working the way I'd like it > to. > With C++11 this problem would disappear. > > About the other options: > 1. HTTP/1.1 and 3. SSL support - I agree with Pierre Couderc (and at time > of writing also Nazim Can Bedir) that most often web applications are > behind a reverse proxy. Therefore SSL termination and "virtual hosting" is > already handled. > 2. Multiple Event Loops - I have no opinion on this, but I haven't > encountered a situation that would necessitate this yet. > > And since Nazim Can Bedir wrote about splitting work, I too would > appreciate it if the project management would be done with GitHub. > I think this would enable more participation. I at least would want to > contribute, but cannot invest much time. > So I think task management over GitHub would be beneficial and would help > me to pick small tasks that I could work on. > > Sincerely, > Martin Bürgmann > > Am Mo., 10. Aug. 2020 um 21:02 Uhr schrieb Artyom Beilis < > art...@gm...>: > >> Hello All, >> >> Following the discussion I want to make a commitment to implement a >> new feature required by the community. Here my options: >> >> 1. HTTP/1.1 support - it would allow keep alive support and better >> performance overall for multiple requests. It would allow future >> implementation of web sockets. >> 2. Multiple-Event-Loop support - today there is only 1 event loop for >> the service and it can be a bottleneck for small requests on systems >> with high core count >> 3. SSL support - for embedded systems that need proper web server >> 4. C++11 cleanup - replace all booster primitives that exist in C++11 >> with standard (shared_ptr, thread, mutex, etc) provide move >> constructors for many objects, replace auto_ptr by unique_ptr. >> >> Feel free to suggest other ideas that you can think of that would be >> beneficial >> >> Artyom Beilis >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cppcms-users mailing list >> Cpp...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users >> > _______________________________________________ > Cppcms-users mailing list > Cpp...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users > |