Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Jacob Shtokolov via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 3 December 2022 at 11:08:53 UTC, Vincent wrote:
Unfortunately even TECHNICALLY stream never was a "range"! It's 
more like "queue of bytes", where you can never be sure you 
even get these bytes.


A stream is exactly a range, a "range of ranges" if more 
specifically. All network devices work with chunks of data 
(buffers), either it's 1 byte or 4096 bytes in size.


So, such ranges may work either with strings (with "\n" 
terminator, like `byLine` or your `readLine` example), or a chunk 
of bytes (like `byChunk`).


---

As for your request about "Easy sockets": it seems there is 
nothing like that available for now in the standard library. 
Besides, your example with google is oversimplified: for example, 
there is no simple way to determine the transport layer protocol 
for a specific domain name and port:


```d
auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80);
sock.WriteLine("GET / HTTP/1.0");
```

You can technically guess between IPv4 and IPv6 by resolving the 
address via DNS, but you can't guess TCP vs UDP without trying to 
connect to a host. Moreover, there are other protocols like QUIC, 
which is built on top of UDP but has different semantics.


However, your demand is quite understandable. There is some 
ongoing work toward these ideas.


For example, what would you say about the following interface:

```d
auto s = socket("tcp://google.com:80");
s.connect();
s.writeln("Hello world");
s.close();
```

or, if asynchronous:

```d
auto t1 = socket("tcp://google.com:80")
  .connect()
  .writeln("GET / HTTP/1.0")
  .readln((sock, msg) => doSomething());

auto t2 = socket("tcp://duckduckgo.com:80")
  .connect()
  .writeln("GET / HTTP/1.0")
  .readln((sock, msg) => doSomethingElse());

wait(t1, t2);
```

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 02:54:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:


Quite some time ago, it was decided that the *stream modules as 
they were were unacceptable and that they needed to be replaced 
with something range-based


That's the key! Absolutely dilettantish solution of "profi", 
biased on ranges.
Unfortunately even TECHNICALLY stream never was a "range"! It's 
more like "queue of bytes", where you can never be sure you even 
get these bytes.


Moreover - "socket stream" is such a specific stream that you 
cannot assume even bytes data! Many protocols rely on STRINGS, so 
SocketStream have to have dual nature - byte-based and 
string-based. Even worse - if you read stupid HTTP standard, it 
allows for server to reply with strings (header), followed by RAW 
BYTES(!). Surprise! So in this light we cannot speak about ranges 
AT ALL. We need stream, which supports strings and at the same 
time bytes. And all of that in convenient way, not just "auto b = 
GimmeStupidHeapOfBytesWhichAreString".


Anyway, it's quite unprofessional to remove SocketStream: it DOES 
NOT fit at all in "range" ideology (as well as, say, Window or 
Button) and lives own life. "Ranges" just PART of library, not a 
whole library! In other words not everything in a library should 
follow "ranges ideology".


I ask to return standard SocketStream and keep it until that 
"smartie" (who remove it) will write fully functional replacement.


Nobody will use D if maintainers will stupidly throw away classes 
by own wish. Keep functionality as big as possible, because D 
even now, after "stable language", still lie on road edge.

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 8 October 2016 at 17:52:25 UTC, Karabuta wrote:
This is how a usable socket in a standard library should be 
http://dsfml.com/docs/sockets.html. This is using DSFML (a D 
bindings to SFML).


Pity, doesn't exist anymore.

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 07:37:48 UTC, Bauss wrote:
Wrote some pretty simple sockets that you could use (Based on 
vibe.d though.)


That's the point! STANDARD library cannot/must not rely on 
bloatware like vibe.d; Only small, native, non-depended socket 
implementation.

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Konstantin Kutsevalov via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 07:37:48 UTC, Bauss wrote:
Wrote some pretty simple sockets that you could use (Based on 
vibe.d though.)


https://github.com/bausshf/cheetah


Hi,

Yes I saw it, but not sure. Does it make sense to use vibe.d only 
for sockets. I mean, it like a web framework with many 
dependencies etc...

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Konstantin Kutsevalov via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 02:54:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
On Monday, October 10, 2016 01:43:54 Konstantin Kutsevalov via 
So, it's simply gone. But if someone wants to propose a 
replacement, they're certainly still free to do so.


- Jonathan M Davis


I see, thank you for answer

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Wrote some pretty simple sockets that you could use (Based on 
vibe.d though.)


https://github.com/bausshf/cheetah

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Dne 10.10.2016 v 03:43 Konstantin Kutsevalov via Digitalmars-d-learn 
napsal(a):



On Monday, 26 September 2016 at 23:40:10 UTC, Vincent wrote:

Hello, guys!

I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, but 
"outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first question is 
WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?


Hello, I'm agree with your main question.

This looks very good http://dsfml.com/docs/sockets.html, but, there is 
no any answer for the question. Why 'socketstream' was deprecated when 
no any replacement modules? It looks strange, like you are removing 
feature from your app because his code old and don't write new code 
for same feature, and just say to users: no feature anymore, haha.


So anyone know the answer?



Until some replacment will occure in phobos socketstream is and will be 
available through https://code.dlang.org/packages/undead

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 01:43:54 Konstantin Kutsevalov via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> Why 'socketstream' was
> deprecated when no any replacement modules? It looks strange,
> like you are removing feature from your app because his code old
> and don't write new code for same feature, and just say to users:
> no feature anymore, haha.
>
> So anyone know the answer?

Quite some time ago, it was decided that the *stream modules as they were
were unacceptable and that they needed to be replaced with something
range-based (they come from early D1 and have never really been updated
since), and they were marked in their documentation to indicate that they
were going to be removed in the future. But apparently, no one cared enough
about that functionality to actually design a replacement, and it sat there
for years. So, it was finally decided that rather than just having code that
was not up to our current standards sit there with a warning on it, it
should be removed. So, they those modules were deprecated (and will be fully
removed in the next release).

I'm sure that part of what it comes down to is that ranges in generally
largely slove the problem that a stream tries to solve (though std.socket
unfortunately doesn't provide an easy way to get a range over a socket),
making the *stream modules largely redundant, and the read, write, and peek
functions in std.bitmanip do a lot of the rest of what would need to be done
with a stream that isn't natively part of a range. So, enough of the
functionality is there in a more general form that a replacement isn't
necessarily needed (even if it might be nice), and if anyone cared enough to
do it, they haven't tried to get it into Phobos (or even put it up on
code.dlang.org AFAIK).

Clearly, some folks use the *stream stuff, but it doesn't seem like many
do, and it's also clear that - for whatever reason - no one has cared enough
to come up with a replacement for Phobos. So, it's simply gone. But if
someone wants to propose a replacement, they're certainly still free to do
so.

- Jonathan M Davis

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Konstantin Kutsevalov via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 26 September 2016 at 23:40:10 UTC, Vincent wrote:

Hello, guys!

I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, 
but "outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first 
question is WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?


Hello, I'm agree with your main question.

This looks very good http://dsfml.com/docs/sockets.html, but, 
there is no any answer for the question. Why 'socketstream' was 
deprecated when no any replacement modules? It looks strange, 
like you are removing feature from your app because his code old 
and don't write new code for same feature, and just say to users: 
no feature anymore, haha.


So anyone know the answer?

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Karabuta via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 26 September 2016 at 23:40:10 UTC, Vincent wrote:

Hello, guys!

I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, 
but "outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first 
question is WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?
To avoid unnecessary mail bouncing, I write upfront what I 
expect from normal Socket implementation (kind of interface) :


[...]


This is how a usable socket in a standard library should be 
http://dsfml.com/docs/sockets.html. This is using DSFML (a D 
bindings to SFML).

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[JN via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 11:16:00 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 10:16 +, JN via Digitalmars-d-learn 
wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 09:23:35 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:
> 
> Why not just create a binding to 0MQ and get much, much more 
> than asked for?
> 

http://code.dlang.org/packages/zmqd 
http://code.dlang.org/packages/zeromq 
http://code.dlang.org/packages/dzmq


or use existing ones :)


Even better, except it would be good if there was one. Maybe 
the authors of these three can get together and make a single 
binding to avoid dispersion.


Not really, because some of these are just pure C bindings, while 
some offer D wrappers for the ZeroMQ interface. Both are good to 
have, depending on the needs.

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 10:16 +, JN via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 09:23:35 UTC, Russel Winder 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Why not just create a binding to 0MQ and get much, much more 
> > than asked for?
> > 
> 
> http://code.dlang.org/packages/zmqd
> http://code.dlang.org/packages/zeromq
> http://code.dlang.org/packages/dzmq
> 
> or use existing ones :)

Even better, except it would be good if there was one. Maybe the
authors of these three can get together and make a single binding to
avoid dispersion.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[JN via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 09:23:35 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:
Why not just create a binding to 0MQ and get much, much more 
than asked for?




http://code.dlang.org/packages/zmqd
http://code.dlang.org/packages/zeromq
http://code.dlang.org/packages/dzmq

or use existing ones :)

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Why not just create a binding to 0MQ and get much, much more than asked
for?

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 23:40 +, Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Hello, guys!
> 
> I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
> Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
> replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, but 
> "outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first question 
> is WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?
> To avoid unnecessary mail bouncing, I write upfront what I expect 
> from normal Socket implementation (kind of interface) :
> 
> 1. Easy to use. No more stupid "UNIX sockets", "TCP types" and so 
> on. Just simple as this:
> 
> // Client side
> auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80);
> sock.WriteLine("GET / HTTP/1.0");
> sock.WriteLine("Host: google.com");
> sock.WriteLine();// empty line sent
> 
> // Server side:
> auto svc = new ServerSocket("Bound.To.This.IP", 1000);
> while ((auto ClientSock = svc.AcceptClient()) !is null) {
>  auto command = ClientSock.ReadLine();// this is important - 
> read by line, not idiotic "buffers of bytes"!
>   ClientSock.WriteLine(command ~ ` yourself!`);
>   ClientSock.Close();
> }
> 
> 2. Of course integration with std.stream could be nice, it gives 
> "for free" readLine and other methods.
> 3. Ability to 'get and forget': hardly all of us wanna deal with 
> "get portion, write portion to disk, blah". Simple 
> "sock.ReceiveFile(`http://porno/girl.avi`, 
> `c:\diploma_work.avi`)" could be enough.
> Some kind of "progress report" callback would be nice.
> 4. SSL/TLS out-of-the-box. In example above it should be same 
> easy as:
> 
> auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80, Proto.TLS);
> 
> 
> At the moment it's all I need, but hope you'll be happy too with 
> such interface. Sockets are SOOO important, that I cannot believe 
> we don't have so easy API now. Or if we have, please share!
> 
> Thanks everybody!
> 
-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Just in case, here are the relevant docs:
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_net_curl.html

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Am Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:40:10 +
schrieb Vincent :

> 1. Easy to use. No more stupid "UNIX sockets", "TCP types" and so 
> on. Just simple as this:
> 
> // Client side
> auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80);
> sock.WriteLine("GET / HTTP/1.0");
> sock.WriteLine("Host: google.com");
> sock.WriteLine();// empty line sent

Haha, this is not how I learned network layers at school.
You seem to want on the ...

Network Layer (3): A connection based socket using the Internet
Protocol

Transport Layer (4): A stateful connection using TCP

Application Layer (6): HTTP

Just that you don't ask for HTTP directly, but shoehorn a
packet based socket into sending microscopic strings. In this
case I recommend cURL, which you can feed with all the header
data at once and sends your complete request in one packet.
That'll also handle most of the HTTP specialties.

Not all data transmissions via IP are TCP either. A good bunch
is sent via stateless UDP. That would not be considered a
stream though. I'm just getting at the name "ClientSocket"
here, which can entail more than TCP/IP streams.

-- 
Marco

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Satoshi via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 26 September 2016 at 23:40:10 UTC, Vincent wrote:

Hello, guys!

I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, 
but "outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first 
question is WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?
To avoid unnecessary mail bouncing, I write upfront what I 
expect from normal Socket implementation (kind of interface) :


1. Easy to use. No more stupid "UNIX sockets", "TCP types" and 
so on. Just simple as this:


// Client side
auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80);
sock.WriteLine("GET / HTTP/1.0");
sock.WriteLine("Host: google.com");
sock.WriteLine();// empty line sent

// Server side:
auto svc = new ServerSocket("Bound.To.This.IP", 1000);
while ((auto ClientSock = svc.AcceptClient()) !is null) {
auto command = ClientSock.ReadLine();// this is important - 
read by line, not idiotic "buffers of bytes"!

ClientSock.WriteLine(command ~ ` yourself!`);
ClientSock.Close();
}

2. Of course integration with std.stream could be nice, it 
gives "for free" readLine and other methods.
3. Ability to 'get and forget': hardly all of us wanna deal 
with "get portion, write portion to disk, blah". Simple 
"sock.ReceiveFile(`http://porno/girl.avi`, 
`c:\diploma_work.avi`)" could be enough.

   Some kind of "progress report" callback would be nice.
4. SSL/TLS out-of-the-box. In example above it should be same 
easy as:


auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80, Proto.TLS);


At the moment it's all I need, but hope you'll be happy too 
with such interface. Sockets are SOOO important, that I cannot 
believe we don't have so easy API now. Or if we have, please 
share!


Thanks everybody!



-idiotic "buffers of bytes"!
It's not buffer of bytes who is idiotic... communication over 
sockets are binary, not in text form. Sending structs in binary 
form is much better idea than send it in text form.


e.g.
struct Message {
int magic;
int command;
int dataLength; // length of data pushed after this struct
}

then you can receive sizeof(Message), check magic, receive 
dataLength of bytes and call delegate by the command int in 
Message...



UNIX sockets are not stupid, only you cannot use it.

Re: Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[haxx via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 26 September 2016 at 23:40:10 UTC, Vincent wrote:

Hello, guys!

I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, 
but "outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first 
question is WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?
To avoid unnecessary mail bouncing, I write upfront what I 
expect from normal Socket implementation (kind of interface) :


1. Easy to use. No more stupid "UNIX sockets", "TCP types" and 
so on. Just simple as this:


// Client side
auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80);
sock.WriteLine("GET / HTTP/1.0");
sock.WriteLine("Host: google.com");
sock.WriteLine();// empty line sent

// Server side:
auto svc = new ServerSocket("Bound.To.This.IP", 1000);
while ((auto ClientSock = svc.AcceptClient()) !is null) {
auto command = ClientSock.ReadLine();// this is important - 
read by line, not idiotic "buffers of bytes"!

ClientSock.WriteLine(command ~ ` yourself!`);
ClientSock.Close();
}

2. Of course integration with std.stream could be nice, it 
gives "for free" readLine and other methods.
3. Ability to 'get and forget': hardly all of us wanna deal 
with "get portion, write portion to disk, blah". Simple 
"sock.ReceiveFile(`http://porno/girl.avi`, 
`c:\diploma_work.avi`)" could be enough.

   Some kind of "progress report" callback would be nice.
4. SSL/TLS out-of-the-box. In example above it should be same 
easy as:


auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80, Proto.TLS);


At the moment it's all I need, but hope you'll be happy too 
with such interface. Sockets are SOOO important, that I cannot 
believe we don't have so easy API now. Or if we have, please 
share!


Thanks everybody!


Sockets in D are a thin layer over the BSD sockets, and they do 
well in that aspect. What you are asking for aren't sockets, but 
more like a HTTP client, have you checked 
https://dlang.org/phobos/etc_c_curl.html ? It should be able to 
do the functionality you are looking for. If not, there are some 
packages on http://code.dlang.org/, such as 
http://code.dlang.org/packages/requests or 
http://code.dlang.org/packages/libhttp2 , which seem like a good 
fit as well.

Easy sockets - don't exist yet?

[Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Hello, guys!

I was very surprised that module 'socketstream' was deprecated. 
Usually if something become obsolete, there is some perfect 
replacement! But my digging in Inet and forums gave nothing, but 
"outdated" examples with 'SocketStream' class. So first question 
is WHAT Phobos has to replace SocketStream?
To avoid unnecessary mail bouncing, I write upfront what I expect 
from normal Socket implementation (kind of interface) :


1. Easy to use. No more stupid "UNIX sockets", "TCP types" and so 
on. Just simple as this:


// Client side
auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80);
sock.WriteLine("GET / HTTP/1.0");
sock.WriteLine("Host: google.com");
sock.WriteLine();// empty line sent

// Server side:
auto svc = new ServerSocket("Bound.To.This.IP", 1000);
while ((auto ClientSock = svc.AcceptClient()) !is null) {
auto command = ClientSock.ReadLine();// this is important - 
read by line, not idiotic "buffers of bytes"!

ClientSock.WriteLine(command ~ ` yourself!`);
ClientSock.Close();
}

2. Of course integration with std.stream could be nice, it gives 
"for free" readLine and other methods.
3. Ability to 'get and forget': hardly all of us wanna deal with 
"get portion, write portion to disk, blah". Simple 
"sock.ReceiveFile(`http://porno/girl.avi`, 
`c:\diploma_work.avi`)" could be enough.

   Some kind of "progress report" callback would be nice.
4. SSL/TLS out-of-the-box. In example above it should be same 
easy as:


auto sock = new ClientSocket("google.com", 80, Proto.TLS);


At the moment it's all I need, but hope you'll be happy too with 
such interface. Sockets are SOOO important, that I cannot believe 
we don't have so easy API now. Or if we have, please share!


Thanks everybody!