Boost Beast Translation (zh_Hans)/Doc / Qbk / 08 Design / 1 Http Message (qbk) — Chinese (Simplified Han script) @ Boost-Weblate: The following video presentation was delivered at [@https://cppcon.org/ CppCon] in …

The translation has come to an end.

Zen

Translation

Source string description

type: paragraph

English

Chinese (Simplified Han script)

Needs editing (Needs rewriting)

Skip

Loading…

admin

String added in the repository

English

Chinese (Simplified Han script) 317 characters editedCurrent translationState: Needs editing (Needs rewriting)

06/05/2026

Browse all string changes

Things to check

Unchanged translation

Source and translation are identical.

Reset

Glossary

English	Chinese (Simplified Han script)
No related strings found in the glossary.

String information

Source string description

type: paragraph

Unit identifier

59307

Source string location

string ID 14

String age

06/05/2026

Last updated

06/05/2026

Source string age

06/05/2026

Translation file QuickBook file

doc/qbk/08_design/1_http_message_zh_Hans.qbk, string 2

Shortcut	Action
`?`	Open available keyboard shortcuts.
`Alt` + `Home`	Navigate to the first translation in the current search.
`Alt` + `End`	Navigate to the last translation in the current search.
`Alt` + `PageUp` or `Ctrl` + `↑` or `Alt` + `↑` or `Cmd` + `↑` or	Navigate to the previous translation in the current search.
`Alt` + `PageDown` or `Ctrl` + `↓` or `Alt` + `↓` or `Cmd` + `↓` or	Navigate to the next translation in the current search.
`Ctrl` + `Enter` or `Cmd` + `Enter`	Submit current form; this works the same as pressing Save and continue while editing translation.
`Ctrl` + `Shift` + `Enter` or `Cmd` + `Shift` +`Enter`	Unmark translation as Needing edit and submit it.
`Alt` + `Enter` or `Option` + `Enter`	Submit the string as a suggestion; this works the same as pressing Suggest while editing translation.
`Ctrl` + `E` or `Cmd` + `E`	Focus on translation editor.
`Ctrl` + `U` or `Cmd` + `U`	Focus on comment editor.
`Ctrl` + `M` or `Cmd` + `M`	Shows Automatic suggestions tab.
`Ctrl` + `1` to `Ctrl` + `9` or `Cmd` + `1` to `Cmd` + `9`	Copies placeable of a given number from source string.
`Ctrl` + `M` followed by `1` to `9` or `Cmd` + `M` followed by `1` to `9`	Copy the machine translation of a given number to current translation.
`Ctrl` + `I` followed by `1` to `9` or `Cmd` + `I` followed by `1` to `9`	Ignore one item in the list of failing checks.
`Ctrl` + `J` or `Cmd` + `J`	Shows the Nearby strings tab.
`Ctrl` + `S` or `Cmd` + `S`	Focus on search field.
`Ctrl` + `O` or `Cmd` + `O`	Copy the source string.
`Ctrl` + `Y` or `Cmd` + `Y`	Toggle the Needs editing checkbox.
`→`	Browse the next translation string.
`←`	Browse the previous translation string.

Key	English	Chinese (Simplified Han script)
	HTTP Message Container __video__	HTTP Message Container __video__
	The following video presentation was delivered at [@https://cppcon.org/ CppCon] in 2017. The presentation provides a simplified explanation of the design process for the HTTP message container used in Beast. The slides and code used are available in the [@https://github.com/vinniefalco/CppCon2017 GitHub repository].	The following video presentation was delivered at [@https://cppcon.org/ CppCon] in 2017. The presentation provides a simplified explanation of the design process for the HTTP message container used in Beast. The slides and code used are available in the [@https://github.com/vinniefalco/CppCon2017 GitHub repository].
	In this section we describe the problem of modeling HTTP messages and explain how the library arrived at its solution, with a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of the design choices. The goal for creating a message model is to create a container with value semantics, possibly movable and/or copyable, that contains all the information needed to serialize, or all of the information captured during parsing. More formally, given:	In this section we describe the problem of modeling HTTP messages and explain how the library arrived at its solution, with a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of the design choices. The goal for creating a message model is to create a container with value semantics, possibly movable and/or copyable, that contains all the information needed to serialize, or all of the information captured during parsing. More formally, given:
	* `m` is an instance of an HTTP message container	* `m` is an instance of an HTTP message container
	* `x` is a series of octets describing a valid HTTP message in	* `x` is a series of octets describing a valid HTTP message in
	* `S(m)` is a serialization function which produces a series of octets	* `S(m)` is a serialization function which produces a series of octets
	* `P(x)` is a parsing function which produces a message container from	* `P(x)` is a parsing function which produces a message container from
	These relations are true:	These relations are true:
	* `S(m) == x`	* `S(m) == x`
	* `P(S(m)) == m`	* `P(S(m)) == m`
	We would also like our message container to have customization points permitting the following: allocator awareness, user-defined containers to represent header fields, and user-defined types and algorithms to represent the body. And finally, because requests and responses have different fields in the ['start-line], we would like the containers for requests and responses to be represented by different types for function overloading.	We would also like our message container to have customization points permitting the following: allocator awareness, user-defined containers to represent header fields, and user-defined types and algorithms to represent the body. And finally, because requests and responses have different fields in the ['start-line], we would like the containers for requests and responses to be represented by different types for function overloading.
	Here is our first attempt at declaring some message containers:	Here is our first attempt at declaring some message containers:
	These containers are capable of representing everything in the model of HTTP requests and responses described in __rfc7230__. Request and response objects are different types. The user can choose the container used to represent the fields. And the user can choose the [*Body] type, which is a concept defining not only the type of `body` member but also the algorithms used to transfer information in and out of that member when performing serialization and parsing.	These containers are capable of representing everything in the model of HTTP requests and responses described in __rfc7230__. Request and response objects are different types. The user can choose the container used to represent the fields. And the user can choose the [*Body] type, which is a concept defining not only the type of `body` member but also the algorithms used to transfer information in and out of that member when performing serialization and parsing.
	However, a problem arises. How do we write a function which can accept an object that is either a request or a response? As written, the only obvious solution is to make the message a template type. Additional traits classes would then be needed to make sure that the passed object has a valid type which meets the requirements. These unnecessary complexities are bypassed by making each container a partial specialization: ``` /// An HTTP message template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> struct message;	However, a problem arises. How do we write a function which can accept an object that is either a request or a response? As written, the only obvious solution is to make the message a template type. Additional traits classes would then be needed to make sure that the passed object has a valid type which meets the requirements. These unnecessary complexities are bypassed by making each container a partial specialization: ``` /// An HTTP message template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> struct message;
	/// An HTTP request template<class Fields, class Body> struct message<true, Fields, Body> {	/// An HTTP request template<class Fields, class Body> struct message<true, Fields, Body> {
126	};	};
	/// An HTTP response template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> struct message<false, Fields, Body> {	/// An HTTP response template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> struct message<false, Fields, Body> {

	English	Chinese (Simplified Han script)	Actions
	The following video presentation was delivered at [@https://cppcon.org/ CppCon] in 2017. The presentation provides a simplified explanation of the design process for the HTTP message container used in Beast. The slides and code used are available in the [@https://github.com/vinniefalco/CppCon2017 GitHub repository].	The following video presentation was delivered at [@https://cppcon.org/ CppCon] in 2017. The presentation provides a simplified explanation of the design process for the HTTP message container used in Beast. The slides and code used are available in the [@https://github.com/vinniefalco/CppCon2017 GitHub repository].
	This function can manipulate the fields common to requests and responses. If it needs to access the other fields, it can use overloads with partial specialization, or in C++17 a `constexpr` expression: ``` template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> void f(message<isRequest, Fields, Body>& msg) {	This function can manipulate the fields common to requests and responses. If it needs to access the other fields, it can use overloads with partial specialization, or in C++17 a `constexpr` expression: ``` template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> void f(message<isRequest, Fields, Body>& msg) {
	} ```	} ```
	HTTP Message Container __video__	HTTP Message Container __video__
	In this section we describe the problem of modeling HTTP messages and explain how the library arrived at its solution, with a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of the design choices. The goal for creating a message model is to create a container with value semantics, possibly movable and/or copyable, that contains all the information needed to serialize, or all of the information captured during parsing. More formally, given:	In this section we describe the problem of modeling HTTP messages and explain how the library arrived at its solution, with a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of the design choices. The goal for creating a message model is to create a container with value semantics, possibly movable and/or copyable, that contains all the information needed to serialize, or all of the information captured during parsing. More formally, given:
	* `m` is an instance of an HTTP message container	* `m` is an instance of an HTTP message container
	* `x` is a series of octets describing a valid HTTP message in	* `x` is a series of octets describing a valid HTTP message in
	* `S(m)` is a serialization function which produces a series of octets	* `S(m)` is a serialization function which produces a series of octets
	* `P(x)` is a parsing function which produces a message container from	* `P(x)` is a parsing function which produces a message container from
	These relations are true:	These relations are true:
	* `S(m) == x`	* `S(m) == x`
	* `P(S(m)) == m`	* `P(S(m)) == m`
	We would also like our message container to have customization points permitting the following: allocator awareness, user-defined containers to represent header fields, and user-defined types and algorithms to represent the body. And finally, because requests and responses have different fields in the ['start-line], we would like the containers for requests and responses to be represented by different types for function overloading.	We would also like our message container to have customization points permitting the following: allocator awareness, user-defined containers to represent header fields, and user-defined types and algorithms to represent the body. And finally, because requests and responses have different fields in the ['start-line], we would like the containers for requests and responses to be represented by different types for function overloading.
	Here is our first attempt at declaring some message containers:	Here is our first attempt at declaring some message containers:
	These containers are capable of representing everything in the model of HTTP requests and responses described in __rfc7230__. Request and response objects are different types. The user can choose the container used to represent the fields. And the user can choose the [*Body] type, which is a concept defining not only the type of `body` member but also the algorithms used to transfer information in and out of that member when performing serialization and parsing.	These containers are capable of representing everything in the model of HTTP requests and responses described in __rfc7230__. Request and response objects are different types. The user can choose the container used to represent the fields. And the user can choose the [*Body] type, which is a concept defining not only the type of `body` member but also the algorithms used to transfer information in and out of that member when performing serialization and parsing.
	However, a problem arises. How do we write a function which can accept an object that is either a request or a response? As written, the only obvious solution is to make the message a template type. Additional traits classes would then be needed to make sure that the passed object has a valid type which meets the requirements. These unnecessary complexities are bypassed by making each container a partial specialization: ``` /// An HTTP message template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> struct message;	However, a problem arises. How do we write a function which can accept an object that is either a request or a response? As written, the only obvious solution is to make the message a template type. Additional traits classes would then be needed to make sure that the passed object has a valid type which meets the requirements. These unnecessary complexities are bypassed by making each container a partial specialization: ``` /// An HTTP message template<bool isRequest, class Fields, class Body> struct message;
	/// An HTTP request template<class Fields, class Body> struct message<true, Fields, Body> {	/// An HTTP request template<class Fields, class Body> struct message<true, Fields, Body> {
	The start-line data members are replaced by traditional accessors using non-owning references to string buffers. The method is stored using a simple integer instead of the entire string, for the case where the method is recognized from the set of known verb strings.	The start-line data members are replaced by traditional accessors using non-owning references to string buffers. The method is stored using a simple integer instead of the entire string, for the case where the method is recognized from the set of known verb strings.
	Now we add a requirement to the fields type: management of the corresponding string is delegated to the [*Fields] container, which can already be allocator aware and constructed with the necessary allocator parameter via the provided constructor overloads for `message`. The delegation implementation looks like this (only the response header specialization is shown): ``` /// An HTTP response header template<class Fields> struct header<false, Fields> : Fields {	Now we add a requirement to the fields type: management of the corresponding string is delegated to the [*Fields] container, which can already be allocator aware and constructed with the necessary allocator parameter via the provided constructor overloads for `message`. The delegation implementation looks like this (only the response header specialization is shown): ``` /// An HTTP response header template<class Fields> struct header<false, Fields> : Fields {
	Now that we've accomplished our initial goals and more, there are a few more quality of life improvements to make. Users will choose different types for `Body` far more often than they will for `Fields`. Thus, we swap the order of these types and provide a default. Then, we provide type aliases for requests and responses to soften the impact of using `bool` to choose the specialization:	Now that we've accomplished our initial goals and more, there are a few more quality of life improvements to make. Users will choose different types for `Body` far more often than they will for `Fields`. Thus, we swap the order of these types and provide a default. Then, we provide type aliases for requests and responses to soften the impact of using `bool` to choose the specialization:
	``` /// An HTTP header template<bool isRequest, class Body, class Fields = fields> struct header;	``` /// An HTTP header template<bool isRequest, class Body, class Fields = fields> struct header;
	/// An HTTP message template<bool isRequest, class Body, class Fields = fields> struct message;	/// An HTTP message template<bool isRequest, class Body, class Fields = fields> struct message;
	/// An HTTP request template<class Body, class Fields = fields> using request = message<true, Body, Fields>;	/// An HTTP request template<class Body, class Fields = fields> using request = message<true, Body, Fields>;
	/// An HTTP response template<class Body, class Fields = fields> using response = message<false, Body, Fields>; ```	/// An HTTP response template<class Body, class Fields = fields> using response = message<false, Body, Fields>; ```
	This allows concise specification for the common cases, while allowing for maximum customization for edge cases: ``` request<string_body> req;	This allows concise specification for the common cases, while allowing for maximum customization for edge cases: ``` request<string_body> req;
	response<file_body> res; ```	response<file_body> res; ```
	In conclusion, this representation for the message container is well thought out, provides comprehensive flexibility, and avoids the necessity of defining additional traits classes. User declarations of functions that accept headers or messages as parameters are easy to write in a variety of ways to accomplish different results, without forcing cumbersome SFINAE declarations everywhere.	In conclusion, this representation for the message container is well thought out, provides comprehensive flexibility, and avoids the necessity of defining additional traits classes. User declarations of functions that accept headers or messages as parameters are easy to write in a variety of ways to accomplish different results, without forcing cumbersome SFINAE declarations everywhere.

Translation

Things to check

Unchanged translation

Glossary

String information

Source string description

Details

Unit identifier

Source string location

String age

Last updated

Source string age

Translation file QuickBook file