On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 wrote:

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:36:23 +0200 (MET DST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:36:37 -0400 (EDT)

             LIBWWW SURVEY

Opens: September 22, 2000
Ends:  October 6, 2000
Goal:  Get a clear idea of what the libwww user community would like to
       do with libwww
Means: Mail your responses to this form to

[1.0] Who are you and how do you use libwww

[1.1] Do you develop or have developed applications that use libwww

[x] Yes
[ ] No

If you didn't answer yes to [1.1], go to section 2.

[1.2] What kind of application (you may cite the name too, if you want)

client side of a specialized proxy

[1.2] On which platform and environment (mark all that apply)

[ ] X-Windows
[x] Unix (includes Linux, Solaris, ...)
[ ] Win32
[ ] GTK
[ ] Others (please cite): 

[1.3] Which language(s) did you use

[x] C
[x] C++
[ ] Others (please cite):

[1.4] How do you rate your programming skills

[x] Experience programmer
[ ] Average programmer
[ ] Beginner

[1.5] What parts of libww do you use

[ ] XML parser
[ ] RDF parser
[ ] HTML parser
[x] HTTP 
[x] FTP
[ ] News
[ ] Telnet
[ ] Gopher
[ ] SSL
[ ] Others (please cite): SSL possibly in the future

[1.6] What applications of libwww do you use

[ ] Examples
[ ] Robot
[ ] LineMode parser
[ ] Command line parser
[ ] WinCommander

[1.7] What modifications do you make to the code before you use it?

I'm not using any of the supplied apps, there are problems in the init and
finish code of the library (among others).

[1.8] If you have any tests for libwww code, what parts of libwww
      do you test and are you willing to contribute the tests to
      the W3C?

[1.9] Anything else you'd like to say

libwww is a good idea, and I need it desperatly, but the documentation of
the overall architecture (and the bells and wistles) is too limited. The
OO approach is nice, but C is the wrong language for it. I understand the
need to have it in C, but so much OO in C is more than I want to handle...

[2.0] Your opinion of libwww

[2.1] In your opinion, libwww is (check all that apply):

[ ] useful to write sample code
[ ] useful for learning how to program a WWW application
[ ] useful to write production code
[ ] Other: please cite

[2.2] Do you find it useful that libwww is written in C

[x] Yes
[x] No

[2.3] Please explain your previous answer

I answered with both yes and no. 

YES: There should be a C version of everything to be able to port software
to every environment (this is a religious answer, maybe in 3 years, C++
will be in the same position, maybe not, maybe it will not be C++)

NO: libwww is so complex, it should be in C++, especially since it tries
to be OO.

[2.4] Do you feel that libwww too big?

[x] Yes
[ ] No

[2.5] If so, which parts would you like to remove, or move to other libraries

It is a general feeling. There is too much in there tailored to an
interactive browser that does not belong into it. True, most parts can be
separated from each other, but the complexity is too high.

[2.6] What are the things that you like the most of libwww

[2.7] What are the things that you dislike the most of libwww

The library takes to much into its own hand, sometimes (and sometimes not)

[2.8] What are the things that you would like to change in libwww

Support for "real" threads. I would like to have a pool of connections to
be shared amongst a pool of threads (maybe one thread per connection). I
want the ability to start a request and to wait for it without having the
pseudo thread model.

[2.9] What are the things you think that libwww are missing

C++ and thread support, more flexibility, it should be simpler. The last
two wishes may contradict - but hey, I can dream...

[2.10] Anything else you'd like to say

Section 3: The future

[3.1] Let's continue with libwww

[3.1.1] Do you think it's worth it to have a WWW library?

[x] Yes
[ ] No

[3.1.2] Do you know of any other similar libraries (please give a URL to
        the project if possible)

perl libwww comes to mind - but it is too slow for me.

[3.1.2] Do you think it's worth it to invest time continuing enhancing
        libwww and its architecture.

[x] Yes
[ ] No

[3.1.3] Are you interested in joining the core team of such a project 
        (enhancing libwww)?

[ ] Yes
[x] No

[3.1.4]  If you are willing to write some new documentation or improve
         existing documentation, which topics are you willing to document?

[3.1.5] Anything else you'd like to say

I simply do not have the time to invest a lot of it - although I would
like to see an improved libwww.

[3.4] Let's invest our forces enhancing an existing project

[3.4.1] Do you think it's better to enhance another existing project (i.e.,
        merge our efforts)

Probably not.

[3.4.2] Are you interested in joining the core team of such a project
        (enhancing an existing project)?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[3.4.3] Anything else you'd like to say

[3.5] Let's write it again

[3.5.1] Do you think the project should stop and start again from a clean

[x] Yes
[ ] No

[3.5.2] Which language would you use and why (please take into account
        portability among systems)?

C++ - it MUST be a compilable language - even with fast computers it
cannot be an interpreted language. It MUST be compilable using g++/egcs
for portability.

[3.5.3] Are you interested in joining the core team of such a project 
        (starting a new libwww project)?

[x] Yes
[x] No

YES: I really would like to
NO:  I do not have the time to invest a lot of it (I'm paid per hour, so
every hour I invest I do not earn money - I invest a lot of time in unpaid
activities already....)

[3.6] Where to host it

[3.6.1] Should W3C continue hosting libwww or any other spin-off projects?

[x] Yes
[ ] No

[3.6.2] SourceForge (SF): How would feel if the W3C transferred libwww to a 
        SF project?

I do not know SourceForge in action.

[3.6.3] Are you currently involved with any SF projects?

[ ] Yes
[x] No

[3.6.4] If so, do you think libwww would fit into that developement paradigm?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[3.6.5] Do you have other suggestions of where libwww should be hosted?

[3.6.6] Anything else you'd like to say

[4.0] Your comments

[4.1] Anything else you'd like to say

The survey is a very good idea.



Received on Friday, 22 September 2000 05:33:27 UTC