Hi Ralf, If you would take cxxtools out of tntnet you would have to copy a lot of classes from cxxtools into tntnet. I think this would not be a good goal.
Andreas Am 15.08.2014 um 12:42 schrieb Ralf Schülke: > Hi, > the good way is the way to making the goal(s) ;-) > > Its time now to define the goal(s), here my small and inclompled goal(s) list: > > - drop cxxtools from tntnet depencis, this means tntnet dont need > cxxtools more and cxxtools have a new hompage etc. > - tntnet are now are a set of small libs and tools with no depences, > this mean you can install tntnet ( libserver, libdb, librpc, liblogin, > etc...) the tools are now precompilers (tntecpp, etc..) > - the source tree are simpler and easer to understand eg: > - src/ > -- libtntserver/ > -- libtntdb/ > -- libtntrpc/ > -- libtntlogin/ > -- tntnet/ > -- tools/ > --- tntecpp/ > --- tntecppc/ > --- tntecppl/ > --- tntecppll/ > --- etc... > -- etc... > - doc > - demo > - build > - test > - misc > > tntnet self are now application runtime server page deamon, he can > start, stop, ceate, login and other stuff. But developer can using the > libs only in other cpp application, tntnet the runtime are not needed, > but for default installation or packages we can make two version, > tntnet-full and tntnet-libs. tntnet are using the libs to do somethink > (start, stop, create, login, etc...) > . > > > Ralf > > 2014-08-15 11:23 GMT+02:00 Tommi Mäkitalo <[email protected]>: >> Hi, >> >> I know, that it would be a great feature, but I currently don't have >> capacity to implement it. >> >> Implementation means complete rethinking of the whole api of tntnet and >> rewriting major parts. >> >> Note that http-2.0 is much more complicated than http-1.1. I don't feel, >> that http-2.0 is really a good idea. I know about the issues, which are >> addressed but http is great due of its simplicity. And http-2.0 is not >> simple at all. But I fear, that we do not come around http-2.0. There is >> just too much market power behind it. >> >> >> Tommi >> >> Am 09.08.2014 10:58, schrieb Oliver Rath: >>> Hi list, >>> >>> do any plans exist for http-2.0 support? Esp. this would be >>> >>> - spdy support >>> - server push support >>> - hpack compression >>> - binary framing >>> - frame multiplexing >>> >>> Regards >>> Oliver >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tntnet-general mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Tntnet-general mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Tntnet-general mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tntnet-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general
