On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Glen Fernandes
... 1. You have a decent library, both in terms of design and implementation. Like Paul, I suggest you put it up for review whenever you feel comfortable.
Thank you for the kind words.
2. You should keep the focus in your discussions on your library and not on the Boost review process.
That's good advice. I will table the issue of whether Beast should offer more high level operations such as a full featured HTTP client or general purpose asynchronous server.
[1] If you require more discussion about the interface to reach that level of comfort, you've already taken the necessary steps by soliciting feedback here.
Yes there are a few points that should be addressed: So far there has been a lot of talk of HTTP and not a word about WebSocket. Does this mean that Beast's WebSocket interface is non-controversial? What about the stuff in here: https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast/tree/master/include/beast/core These currently are official interfaces, and I would like to keep them that way. In fact, I think some of them should be part of the Networking TS (buffer_cat in particular). Is this a problem? What namespace would they go into? e.g. boost::buffer_cat? boost::beast::buffer_cat? boost::asio::buffer_cat (that would probably be the best choice but it injects names into someone else's namespace) What would the library be called in Boost? Not Boost.Http. Would it be Boost.Beast? I do plan on adding more to this library such as SOCKS proxy support (that would be a new protocol). Would we just rename beast to boost, i.e. boost::http::async_read, boost::http::message? What happens if someone else puts together a full feature HTTP client in a new proposed lbrary, what would they call it? boost::http::client? HTTP/2 support came up as a blocker in last years reviews. Beast design does take HTTP/2 into account. Objects which are HTTP/1 only are clearly marked (e.g. beast::http::message_v1) and HTTP/1 specific algorithms are overloaded on those specific types. Are these points obstacles for review? How do I start the formal review process?