Boost.Beast VS libunifex

There is at least one notable exception to this rule: https://github.com/boostorg/beast/issues/1445

I am using this example : https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/example/websocket/client/async-ssl/websocket_client_async_ssl.cpp My application is listening to tick data streams of crypto exchanges over the websockets and processing and sending orders to the exchange.

We used beast to implement a market data server(and I think we also did a small client, to test it) which was sending protobuf messages, and it worked great(we also used boost adio, which made it very scalable). When we tested the server, we were generating around 100k messages per second(when there was the biggest activity on the market), I think I've posted here some stats: https://github.com/boostorg/beast/issues/2313.

Boost Beast?

And Chris wrote this example, which is faster than any of my other examples: https://github.com/boostorg/beast/tree/21cd552399aa8167ed53c21a74f3711c2c316d2f/example/http/server/fast

cmake -h. -Bbuild && cmake --build build

to work about 90% of the time. Far more luck than I've had with autotools.

> Its code is horrifying too, for example:

1) I'm sure I could find some horriffic code in meson too if I went digging. 2) The alternative to this is you having to write something equivalent in your own code, meaning that in my code I don't need to do stuff like [0] in my code to detect features; my build system handles it for me. 3) CMake supports more platforms and targets than I've ever seen in my life, and likely supports more compilers than are necessary. that's a blessing and a curse, but it means that if I write simple program to run on some crufty microcontroller with a bastardised gcc toolchain from the 90s, it's fairly likely that cmake supports it out of the box. Code like that is the price to pay for that level of support.

[0] https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/b7344b0d501f23f763a76...

If you need an embedded C++ HTTP server then there are plenty of libraries/frameworks (in random order): Crow, RESTinio, Boost.Beast, cpp-httplib, http_backend, Pistache, RestBed, served, proxygen, Simple-Web-Server, drogon, oat++.

I'm curious what led you to this conclusion. If you ran into scalability issues with its static_thread_pool, then that's a known issue. If it's something else, the authors (of which I'm one) would love to know.

Instead of calling add_executable you will call add_library. Here is a (only moderately complicated) production example of a library that can be built standalone (along with tests and example executables), or as a subproject, where it builds only the library

My original thought was to build my DDS implementation on top of libunifex in anticipation for standardization: https://github.com/facebookexperimental/libunifex

I'm trying to understand how to work with the proposed executors in a project, but after watching Eric Niebler's cppcon talks (https://youtu.be/xLboNIf7BTg) and looking at the libunifex examples (https://github.com/facebookexperimental/libunifex/tree/main/examples) I still have a hard time wrapping my head around how to employ the sender/receiver pattern in a larger project.

You have coroutines in C++20 but there is also the executives proposal that's making it's way into C++23 that is available as a library under the name unifex that only requires C++14

Asio-grpc makes exactly that possible by providing an Asio execution_context compatible interface to the CompletionQueue. It supports all types of RPCs (including generic ones), completion tokens, cancellation, as well as libunifex sender/receiver (if you want to try out what might become std::execution). The latest release (v1.7.0) also introduced a GrpcStream class for writing Rust/Golang select-style code.

P2300: they are trying to standardize facebookexperimental/libunifex

All the network handling for Instagram and all other Meta apps on all platforms is handled by their own C++ library https://github.com/facebookexperimental/libunifex.

This. I'd also like to mention libunifex. It's entirely based on tag_invoke and is a testament as to how much power it actually provides. On the other hand, it also proves how cumbersome it is to define CPOs with tag_invoke. But IMO it's a lot better than anything else anyone has ever created, and users usually don't need to define new CPOs, only library writers do, so there's that.

A work in progress implementation of the library: https://github.com/facebookexperimental/libunifex