On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Glyn Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27 May 2010 15:48, Dean Michael Berris <[email protected]> wrote: >> [snip] >> >> * asynchronous http client >> * streaming http client support >> * web framework >> * smtp client >> * more message algorithms (transforms, renderers) >> * more message specializations (for CString, QString, etc.) >> * xmpp client >> > > Are all these equally hard or time-consuming?
From the outset, I'd say yes -- they all require pretty much the same amount of work and the same amount of time to complete, so I'm thinking of which one would have most of my effort. > Some tests for message > specializations would be worthwhile; an SMTP client could be good to prove > the architecture. I think we already have the basics of the message specializations tests in there (the one that uses the template based testing of Boost.Test) -- it's just a matter of adding more, and I think anyone can pick that up and run away with it. :) The SMTP client will need a lot of thinking on my part -- which I plan to work on with Marshall because he already has a lot of experience in that field. It's also one of those things I kinda hinted would have to be implemented within the year which works well with the MIME library that Marshall is working on. ;) > I have started a branch in my own fork for the XMPP client, so I hope you > provide discussion on that (I'll push some more changes when I get home this > evening). That's cool! Definitely we can discuss that here. I think we better start a thread around it. I plan on stabilizing the master at this time and push a 0.6.1 for the MSVC 10 users. > Additionally, you can implement more examples. I can think of more > interesting to do with the HTTP server, if you have webspace available we > could host some cpp-netlib project-related things (eating our own dog food > could be useful to find any further issues and to showcase our work). > Examples, yes. :) Unfortunately I don't have a server where I have root privileges to run on port 80. If anybody is willing to volunteer some public IP and a server that can run a cpp-netlib developed service that would be *super*. >> >> Of course, documentation is another thing that we all agree could be >> improved -- and I've pretty much indicated my preference for RST by >> writing up my BoostCon paper in that format. Are there any specific >> requests for improvement in the documentation that you would like me >> personally to address? > > Is there anything of your paper and presentation you could incorporate into > the docs at http://cpp-netlib.github.com/ ? I think one good thing to do is to link to the PDF of the paper from the documentation. That should be alright. I plan on writing more papers about different things in the coming weeks and should be something worth looking out for. ;) And, please feel free to take anything from the document and use it in the generated documentation. I'll let you decide which ones are worth pulling into the docs. :) > I have a short to-do list for > this, including: > * Clear directions on how to get cpp-netlib (both packages and git source) > * Clear information on how to run the examples > * More on the theory behind the design > * Extension points for new protocols > * More on URI docs, it's a little neglected All sound good to me, let's git-r-done! :D >> >> The reason I ask is because I want to bring cpp-netlib to a level >> where it would be a viable alternative to other HTTP libraries already >> in the market. I'm thinking of pitching it as a library that can solve >> most, if not all of your HTTP client and HTTP server needs. I also >> would like to bring it to a level that would be Boost-worthy by the >> end of the year, so that either I or others contributing to the effort >> can talk about it in BoostCon 2011. ;) >> > > Do we have a clearer definition of "Boost-worthy"? When you were at > BoostCon, did you get any guage of what might be a minimum acceptable > implementation? > Well, *I* have a good idea on what Boost-worthy means: * Follows Boost guidelines on documentation, licensing, namespace requirements, etc. * Is implemented well, sufficiently cross-platform, and delivers the features as advertised * Something we all can be proud of to show to other people Someone actually asked me what the plan was, and I said I wanted to get it to a point where it is 1.0-worthy and within the year submit for review. My personal target is September, which is just a few months away. It should be easier now for me because I have a spiffy new machine to build/test on and thanks to Microsoft Philippines, access to an evaluation version of Visual Studio 2010 Professional -- which apparently is a larger audience in Boost. So... really we just want to get 1.0 out the door and submit for a review. I still maintain that 1.0 should have: * asynchronous HTTP client * (e)smtp client * MIME * xmpp We're running out of numbers in between 0.6 and 1.0 (assuming that we stop at 0.9 and "upgrade" to 1.0) so it would be good if we can get a move on with these things. Help would really be appreciated. > > I will be away all next week, but over the rest of the summer I'd like to > put more time into this project. Cool, definitely much appreciated Glyn! > Thanks, Thank you too! :) -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Cpp-netlib-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpp-netlib-devel
