[PATCH 00/13] Replace mongoose with civetweb.

Mon Apr 25 21:22:52 UTC 2016

Agreed 100%!

NTP has an RSB recipe and there are others for various libraries which
should be good examples. Shouldn't take long to do the recipe. Just ask
questions rather than getting stuck.
On Apr 25, 2016 7:03 PM, "Gedare Bloom" <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Christian Mauderer
> > <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Essentially I agree that it would be nice to build civetweb as an
> >> external library especially with the different network stacks in mind.
> >> But there are some points that keep me from doing it:
> >>
> >> 1. I have really no Idea what would be necessary to build it as an
> >> upstream project using RSB. If that are only something like three simple
> >> steps, it should be possible to squeeze it in the little time budget
> >> that is left for the project. If I first have to analyze and change a
> >> lot of RSB, it would be challenging.
> >>
> > FWIW I think this can be a secondary goal. Switching over to the real
> > upstream project with proper licensing is important.
> >
> > When we do this, we incur some burden of "retraining" users to consider
> > a webserver an external addon. But that is the direction I think we want
> > to head with httpd, telnetd, ftpd, etc. So it is a good long term goal.
> >
> >>
> >> Chris, I think you know the RSB best: What steps do you think would be
> >> necessary?
> >>
> >
> > Chris...
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Currently there is one test case for mghttpd (libtests/mghttpd01).
> >> This is one of the few tests that check some networking functions in
> >> RTEMS. Further we should not loose the ability to test software when it
> >> is build with RSB. How would we handle tests for software in RSB?
> >>
> >
> > That's a Chris question. We should aim to have tests which run with
> > either network stack for RSB built network services. This is a good
> > requirement on the plan to moving to separately built network stacks
> > and services.
> >
> > Having thought about this, I am not opposed to seeing the patches
> > merged as long as it is clear what is just moving to the new upstream,
> > what are patches, the patches are submitted upstream and we push
> > to get them merged.
> >
> > I realize you need a practical goal. I would like concurrence from Chris
> > and Gedare on the short and long term plans. If you can make any
> > progress on the long term plan, that's good but we should accept
> > the short term needed improvement.
> >
> > Perfection is the enemy of the good enough.
> >
> We need to watch out for incurring (new) technical debt. This patch
> set does not add new debt, but it does expose some that we had not
> thought about yet. I would certainly encourage spending some of your
> budget to consider the difficulty to provide the web server as a 3rd
> party package build, and to open a ticket to track such an idea. Since
> we now have examples of other 3rd party packages (e.g. graphics tool
> kit), I would expect that a web server should not be too hard. Plus,
> you get the advantage of not tying the civetweb build to the in-tree
> net stack.
>
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> Christian Mauderer
> >>
> >> Am 23.04.2016 um 15:07 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
> >> > I am really with Gedare and Chris that it would be better to treat
> this
> >> > as an upstream project. Use the RSB and track patches through RTEMS
> >> > tools.
> >> >
> >> > It would be a good case to push the model of a single network service
> >> > supporting both stacks and begin the process of removing networking
> code
> >> > from the base RTEMS git repo.
> >> >
> >> > It would also push us to figure out how to rest RSB built packages.
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 22, 2016 12:05 AM, "Christian Mauderer"
> >> > <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> >> > <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >     Yes that's right. 05/13 just adds the unchanged sources from
> >> > civetweb.
> >> >     Beneath civetweb.c and civetweb.h it also adds handle_form.inl and
> >> >     md5.inl. The last two files are included into civetweb.c.
> According
> >> > to
> >> >     the documentation "The *INL* file extension represents code that
> is
> >> >     statically included inline in a source file."
> >> >
> >> >     And yes: The patch didn't get through. I have got a replay that
> >> > "Your
> >> >     message to devel awaits moderator approval". The civetweb.c file
> is
> >> > over
> >> >     300k and the mailing list seems to have a maximum of 256k. I hoped
> >> > that
> >> >     one of the mail admins would approve the patch soon.
> >> >
> >> >     Am 21.04.2016 um 22:49 schrieb Gedare Bloom:
> >> >     > I think patch 05/13 probably adds civetweb.c and civetweb.h? But
> >> > it
> >> >     > did not come through the mailman.
> >> >     >
> >> >     > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org
> >> >     <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >> >     >> P.S. might be worth it to open a ticket related to civetweb and
> >> >     >> #update it from these patches.
> >> >     >>
> >> >     >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Gedare Bloom <
> gedare at rtems.org
> >> >     <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >> >     >>> Is the plan eventually to be able to use the upstream
> civetweb?
> >> >     or to
> >> >     >>> track it with our own copy?
> >> >     >>>
> >> >     >>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Christian Mauderer
> >> >     >>> <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> >> >     <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >> >     >>>> This patch series replaces the mongoose webserver by its
> still
> >> > MIT
> >> >     >>>> licensed fork civetweb.
> >> >     >>>>
> >> >     >>>> Please note that I try to get some (currently two) of the
> >> > patches
> >> >     >>>> directly into civetweb too. But I think that it might need
> some
> >> >     time and
> >> >     >>>> adaption till they are accepted. So I thought that adding
> them
> >> >     to RTEMS
> >> >     >>>> would still make sense as a working interim solution.
> >> >     >>>>
> >> >     >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >     >>>> devel mailing list
> >> >     >>>> devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> >> >     >>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> >
> >> >     --
> >> >     --------------------------------------------
> >> >     embedded brains GmbH
> >> >     Christian Mauderer
> >> >     Dornierstr. 4
> >> >     D-82178 Puchheim
> >> >     Germany
> >> >     email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> >> >     <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
> >> >     Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
> <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2018>
> >> >     Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
> <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2008>
> >> >     PGP: Public key available on request.
> >> >
> >> >     Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des
> >> > EHUG.
> >> >     _______________________________________________
> >> >     devel mailing list
> >> >     devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> >> >     http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> embedded brains GmbH
> >> Christian Mauderer
> >> Dornierstr. 4
> >> D-82178 Puchheim
> >> Germany
> >> email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> >> Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
> >> Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
> >> PGP: Public key available on request.
> >>
> >> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160425/b37d05c3/attachment-0002.html>