Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10

-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas via Boost Sent: 03 July 2017 13:34 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Niall Douglas Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10

On 03/07/2017 03:07, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

<snip>

I think that makes sense in a high level HTTP library. For a low level HTTP library I think it a design mistake, much simpler is much better. Less is more. I've used the above serialiser design on a number of occasions now, it's very efficient, composable, and flexible. It *does* push understanding of HTTP onto the end user, but then if the end user doesn't understand HTTP, they wouldn't be able to use a low level library anyway.

If BEAST is accepted, is there any reason why such an even--lower-level library could not (or should not) be written (and also accepted)? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830