Hi Andreas, i mean for tntnet2 we can drop cxxtools and make tntnet more as a one product stuff. For http 2.0 can we do this and brake not the cxxtools, tntnet, tntnetdb.
My goals are for the new tntnet version for http 2.0 also tntnet2. Ralf 2014-08-15 12:50 GMT+02:00 Andreas Welchlin <[email protected]>: > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tntnet-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general
