Review cpp-netlib for full implementation
Created by: anonimal
By submitting this issue, I confirm the following:
- I have read and understood the contributor guide.
- I have checked that the issue I am reporting can be replicated or that the feature I am suggesting is not present.
- I have checked opened or recently closed pull requests for existing solutions/implementations to my issue/suggestion.
Place an X inside the bracket to confirm
-
I confirm.
In today's meeting, we agreed to move on cpp-netlib pending more review and provided that we are able to make certain adjustments to fit our needs. Excerpt from meeting:
2016-03-05 * anonimal repasting
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:45:33 &anonimal Considering the importance of auto-update,
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:45:42 &anonimal I don't want to go cheap on any library so,
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:45:56 &anonimal maybe the flexibility of cpp-netlib is worth the cost.
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:47:06 &anonimal Or we can just keep doing things by hand and do extensive review over time.
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:47:23 &anonimal But that takes time away from other things.
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:49:02 &anonimal EinMByte: are you able to vote now or do you need more time?
2016-03-05 &anonimal 2016-03-05 18:58:08 &anonimal EinMByte: last message you received?
2016-03-05 +EinMByte I think auto-update would be easier if we bundle a library
2016-03-05 +EinMByte that is, anything static is easy to auto-update because we don't have to require any updated dependencies
2016-03-05 +EinMByte I'm looking at http::client
2016-03-05 +EinMByte It seems like there is a template parameter called Tag that can be changed
2016-03-05 +EinMByte The default is UDP
2016-03-05 +EinMByte anonimal: https://github.com/cpp-netlib/cpp-netlib/blob/master/boost/network/protocol/http/tags.hpp
2016-03-05 &anonimal Yep, so do you vote yay or nay for full implementation of cpp-netlib or do you want to review more?
2016-03-05 +EinMByte I vote yes on the condition that we can create our own tag
2016-03-05 &anonimal I'm fine with more review now that we know what lib to focus on.
2016-03-05 +EinMByte If that's not possible, the choice is much harder imho
2016-03-05 +EinMByte so let's say more research needed?
2016-03-05 &anonimal Ok, how about we open a ticket to review ability to create custom tag. If that passes, then we can move onto implementing.
2016-03-05 +EinMByte ok