Review cpp-netlib for full implementation

[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

[anonimal]

Tried to assign to two people, forgot that doesn't work 😄

[anonimal]

Ah, GitHub finally implemented multiple assignees to issues. Assigning both myself and @EinMByte.

[anonimal]

cpp-netlib's master branch presently fails to build on Arch because of deprecated Asio/SSLv3 symbols (but this is known). Building from either 0.13-release, 0.12-release, or 0.12-devel is successful. Building from tagged cpp-netlib-0.12.0-rc2 still fails.

[anonimal]

As noted in #718, cpp-netlib development is not nearly where it should be (in terms of activity) for me to gain enough confidence in the future of their library. Though the abstract messaging potential is there, and the library has great potential, I don't want to put any potential risk for backtracking onto kovri's future.

Our current impl of cpp-netlib is suitable to our present needs and need not be expanded at this present time.