Re: [boost] [http] Boost.Http review report
On Aug 27, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Bjorn Reese
The outcome of the formal review of Boost.Http is that the library is NOT accepted for inclusion into Boost this time. ... Judging from the reviews, the following additions will make a future submission more likely to succeed:
1. Involve the community more during the development. This will both solicit earlier feedback on the design, and help to align community expectation.
I've been trying to involve the community for several months now, offering opportunities to weigh in on design decisions, provide feedback on pull requests, perform code reviews on pending merges. The response has been, to put it nicely, minimal. In particular I have not heard from anyone involved in the other proposed libraries such as Boost.Http or cpp-netlib except some initial contacts in early 2016.
2017-05-14 21:48 GMT-03:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost
In particular I have not heard from anyone involved in the other proposed libraries such as Boost.Http or cpp-netlib except some initial contacts in early 2016.
I've saw your email to Boost maililng list asking for feedback on Beast.Http weeks earlier. I'm planning to reply once I finish current refactor that you make message model more compatible with Beast one. Aside from that, I've been very inactive indeed. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
I'm planning to reply once I finish current refactor that you make message model more compatible with Beast one.
Ah, glad to hear you're still in the game! Just a little less than 7 weeks until the Beast formal review period starts, so I'm going through all the old Boost.Http review feedback and try to make everyone happy! If you have questions about recent Beast changes or the message model don't hesitate to open an issue in the GitHub repository, I've also made some changes and I have a little more change planned which will really take care of those folks who want fine grained control over how fields are stored in memory (or if they are stored at all).
Click in “reply to all” please
=P
2017-05-14 21:57 GMT-03:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
wrote: I'm planning to reply once I finish current refactor that you make message model more compatible with Beast one.
Ah, glad to hear you're still in the game! Just a little less than 7 weeks until the Beast formal review period starts, so I'm going through all the old Boost.Http review feedback and try to make everyone happy!
If you have questions about recent Beast changes or the message model don't hesitate to open an issue in the GitHub repository, I've also made some changes and I have a little more change planned which will really take care of those folks who want fine grained control over how fields are stored in memory (or if they are stored at all).
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
participants (2)
-
Vinnie Falco
-
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira