Wt

(It would be really nice if you would simply stick to the essence, instead of flaming me with off-topic comments. I've answered one more time for the sake of completeness)

Koen Deforche wrote:

Hey,

This is not within the scope of the project:

Having subsystems isolated (e.g. modular sources) is always "within the scope" of a project.

we have no intention of supporting the httpd outside of the context of a Wt application (and we believe there are sufficient alternatives to wthttpd for a C web server anyway).

I didn't suggest that, please read with more precision.

\" But even if emweb does not go so far to offer it separately, the server should be isolated more in the sources (e.g. own folder) and in the documentation (e.g. with some examples for use outside of wt).\"

"but even if", "should", "e.g.", "e.g."

Regards,

koen

(side note: "Regards, koen" does not belong into issue-tracker comments. Would you "reject" such an issue, too?)

PS We will keep on rejecting 'bugs' and 'features' that you submit where you tell us what 'we should do' without a proper motivation.

"without a proper motivation" - I think you getting out of line here.

"where you tell us what 'we should do'" - please, that's too much to take. You sound like my latest girl-friend now. Are you seriously suggesting that pointing out facts is "telling you what you do"? You can do better. (See, I can get out of line, too)

We are pragmatic and are motivated solely by real use cases and improving the efficiency of Wt users,

You really believe that? Your self-assessment is just unrealistic. Please wake up! You should really review some feedback of users (and potential users).

and not by academic code reviews or philosophical inspirations.

Now you write complete nonsense.

You will thus save yourself and us time by focusing on your scratching your own itch, and communicating to us what you really want to do, and explaining us how certain changes in Wt will help you to achieve your own goal.

I am still evaluating / assessing Wt (code, project, team, processes, ...), so no need to ask you for anything.

And seeing the code and project quality (and your manners on the isssue-tracker), you would be really the last ones I would ask for a processing model. Please calm you egos down, an let me do what I am doing my own way.

Because there is a simple fact: your way, keeps wt back. Many other see this, except you.

PS.2 src/http is covered under the same license as the rest of the library;

No, it's covered by this license:

https://github.com/kdeforche/wt/blob/master/src/http/LICENSE_1_0.txt

e.g. this file:

https://github.com/kdeforche/wt/blob/master/src/http/WServer.C

it's a derivative work that includes some original 'boost licensed' libraries.

-

Further isolation/decoupling of the Server is nothing special. Modular sources are nothing special.

Of course you are free to continue to "reject" in your ungentle "wild-west" manner (an to ignore reality).

For me, it's just unbelieable that you don't say something like "A separate Server product? No, we would not go so far. But further isolation/decoupling of the sources and a bit of documentation... yes, this should be done, of course"

So much noise for nothing...