wdt VS Boost.Beast

I like the way you're thinking here, I think the limitations you mentioned with gemini may stand... for me it's kind of like the limitations generally speaking with markdown. Doesn't leave much room for doing stuff like parsing the raw data when they aren't in a hierarchical structure with xpaths you can target and stuff like that, it just throws out so much baby with the bathwater that I'm ready to scream infanticide.

Any thoughts on fast experimental protocols like warp data transfer [1] or fast and secure protocol [2] ? I know they're not exactly the most open things or wellsupported in terms of what you're looking for but I've been really wondering when we're going to start seeing pressure to relieve network congestion using stuff like this.

[1] https://github.com/facebookarchive/wdt

That's great stuff, I wonder how it compares to wdt[0] when there's only one TCP path. This has been my go-to tool to transfer files on the network.

0: https://github.com/facebook/wdt

I guess? If you’re building parallel infrastructure (vlans are not enough obviously) just for running Aspera over it might not be the worst thing ever, but that’s an expensive way to live and that’s before you pay for the A$pera licenses. There are free and better behaved platforms out there like https://github.com/facebook/wdt if you don’t want other applications’ TCP sessions to time out while you’re trying to squeeze out the last half percent with Aspera.

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++.