May be will useful for protocol parsers to accept functions, that will check correctness of request/responses. For example, http/1.1 require Host header, and so on.
Thank you for your suggestion. Please have a look at the client branch which I'm currently finishing unit tests on. It can support this through both policy and/or sub-classing of boost::network::http::rfc1945_2068_extended. Facilities such as rfc1945_2068_extended::contains_header(..) for this are also provided. While I believe this to be trivial for users to add, I do like the idea of providing a better set of classes to specify the "granularity" of protocol-conformance that a client supports and while such a feature is not a priority for me right now, I will it that into consideration for later releases.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thank you for your suggestion. Please have a look at the client branch which I'm currently finishing unit tests on. It can support this through both policy and/or sub-classing of boost::network::http::rfc1945_2068_extended. Facilities such as rfc1945_2068_extended::contains_header(..) for this are also provided. While I believe this to be trivial for users to add, I do like the idea of providing a better set of classes to specify the "granularity" of protocol-conformance that a client supports and while such a feature is not a priority for me right now, I will it that into consideration for later releases.
Please excuse my grammar: Concerning protocol conformance granularity, I will take that into consideration for later releases.
John