On 28 May 2010 05:49, Dean Michael Berris <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. ;) > +2 for this. > > > 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 will do, in a few weeks. The source is already at http://github.com/glynos/cpp-netlib in branch xmpp for anyone who wants to take a look. >> > >> 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. :) > OK! > > > 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 > I think that's possible inside the scope. Just a question about the MIME implementation: there was a talk at BoostCon about this, is possible to find out any more about this? A video or a transcript? I'd be interested to learn more about this. > > 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. > after 0.9 we can go to 0.10, 0.11, etc. It doesn't have to be decimal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Cpp-netlib-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpp-netlib-devel
