REST API setup in C++: Discussion with ChatGpt

give me a logical start point for restapi in cpp I hve a userTable (id, name, password, apikey,....) I wn to let user login to my restapi for apache server installed in ubuntu VM instance

Since you want a REST API in C++ that talks to Apache, lets users log in, and validates credentials from your userTable, the cleanest starting point is to break this into three layers and decide the integration point with Apache before writing any code.

1. Decide your deployment approach

You have two main options for running a C++ REST API behind Apache:

Option	How it works	Pros	Cons
CGI / FastCGI module	Apache runs your C++ program per request (CGI) or keeps it running (FastCGI)	Works inside Apache, simple to set up, no separate server	CGI is slow (fork per request), FastCGI needs a library like fcgi
Reverse proxy to a C++ HTTP server	Your C++ app runs its own HTTP server (e.g., Boost.Beast, Pistache, Drogon) and Apache proxies `/api/*` to it	Modern async performance, better for many requests	More moving parts, need proxy config

For modern performance, I recommend Boost.Beast or Drogon with Apache as a reverse proxy.

2. Choose a C++ REST library

Here are realistic options:

Drogon – modern, async, routing, JSON, ORM built in. Fast start.
Boost.Beast – very low-level, but flexible; you already know Boost, so this is good for full control.
Crow – simple and lightweight routing + JSON.
Pistache – also minimal but good for REST.

If you want to start fast and focus on login logic, not HTTP boilerplate, Drogon is easiest:

bash
sudo apt install libjsoncpp-dev uuid-dev
git clone https://github.com/drogonframework/drogon
cd drogon && mkdir build && cd build
cmake .. && make && sudo make install

3. API flow for login

Your REST API login route should:

Accept JSON body: { "username": "...", "password": "..." }
Query userTable for the username
Verify password (never store plain text; store salted hashes — bcrypt or argon2)
Generate a session token or JWT
Return { "status": "ok", "token": "<jwt>" }

Example: Drogon login handler (minimal skeleton)

cpp
#include <drogon/drogon.h>
#include <json/json.h>

int main() {
    drogon::app().registerHandler("/login",
        [](const drogon::HttpRequestPtr& req,
           std::function<void (const drogon::HttpResponsePtr &)> callback) {
            
            // Parse JSON body
            auto json = req->getJsonObject();
            if(!json || !(*json).isMember("username") || !(*json).isMember("password")) {
                auto resp = drogon::HttpResponse::newHttpJsonResponse(
                    Json::Value{{"error", "Invalid request"}});
                resp->setStatusCode(drogon::k400BadRequest);
                return callback(resp);
            }

            std::string username = (*json)["username"].asString();
            std::string password = (*json)["password"].asString();

            // TODO: Query DB (PostgreSQL/MySQL) for username
            // TODO: Verify hashed password (bcrypt/argon2)
            bool loginOk = (username == "admin" && password == "1234");

            Json::Value result;
            if(loginOk) {
                result["status"] = "ok";
                result["token"] = "example-token"; // Replace with JWT
            } else {
                result["status"] = "fail";
            }

            auto resp = drogon::HttpResponse::newHttpJsonResponse(result);
            callback(resp);
        },
        {drogon::Post}
    );

    drogon::app().addListener("0.0.0.0", 8080).run();
}

4. Apache reverse proxy config

In your Apache site config:

apache
ProxyPass "/api/" "http://127.0.0.1:8080/"
ProxyPassReverse "/api/" "http://127.0.0.1:8080/"

Then your C++ server runs on port 8080 and Apache forwards /api/* to it.

5. Security basics

Always hash passwords (bcrypt or argon2)
Use HTTPS (Apache can handle SSL, your C++ server stays HTTP)
Use JWT or API key in Authorization header for subsequent requests
Rate limit login attempts

If you want, I can give you a PostgreSQL + Drogon login implementation that works directly with your userTable, including bcrypt password hashing and API key validation, so you have a complete working login endpoint.
It will be memory-optimized and production-ready.

Can this rest api work in apache server be done by boost cpp lib alone? or I need other framework like dragon/ cpp cms/ etc?

Yes — you can build your REST API entirely using Boost libraries alone, without Drogon, CppCMS, Crow, etc.
But… it’s important to understand what that means in practice.

What Boost alone gives you

Boost.Beast → Low-level HTTP/WebSocket protocol handling
Boost.Asio → Asynchronous networking (TCP, timers, SSL via OpenSSL)
Boost.JSON or nlohmann/json → JSON parsing/serialization

With just these, you can:

Accept HTTP requests (including POST with JSON body)
Parse routes manually (/login, /getUser, etc.)
Talk to your database (via libpqxx for PostgreSQL, mysql++ or mysqlcppconn for MySQL)
Send JSON responses

What you won’t get automatically with Boost

Frameworks like Drogon/CppCMS give you:

URL routing (/login → function)
Middleware (auth checks, logging, rate limits)
Database connection pooling
Session/token management
File uploads/static file serving
Easy HTTPS setup

With Boost alone, you’ll have to:

Manually parse the HTTP request target (req.target() in Beast)
Route to the right function
Parse JSON and handle errors
Write your own session/token logic
Handle connection keep-alive, timeouts, and SSL handshake

Apache integration

If you go Boost-only, you’ll run your C++ program as:

Standalone HTTP server (Boost.Beast)
Apache configured as a reverse proxy to your server (ProxyPass/ProxyPassReverse)

You will not run Boost.Beast “inside” Apache — Apache modules are C APIs and using Boost inside an Apache module is possible but far more complex than running your own server behind Apache.

Minimal Boost.Beast REST server structure

cpp
// Pseudo-simplified skeleton
#include <boost/beast.hpp>
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/json.hpp>
using tcp = boost::asio::ip::tcp;
namespace http = boost::beast::http;
namespace json = boost::json;

void handle_request(const http::request<http::string_body>& req,
                    http::response<http::string_body>& res) {
    if(req.target() == "/login" && req.method() == http::verb::post) {
        auto body = json::parse(req.body());
        auto username = body.at("username").as_string();
        auto password = body.at("password").as_string();
        // TODO: query DB, check password
        json::object reply;
        reply["status"] = "ok";
        res.result(http::status::ok);
        res.set(http::field::content_type, "application/json");
        res.body() = json::serialize(reply);
    } else {
        res.result(http::status::not_found);
        res.body() = "Not found";
    }
    res.prepare_payload();
}

From here, you’d add:

Async accept loop (Boost.Asio)
SSL context (if needed)
Connection keep-alive

✅ Conclusion:
You don’t need Drogon/CppCMS if you’re fine with writing your own routing, middleware, and DB handling.
Using Boost.Beast + Boost.Asio alone gives maximum control and no external dependencies, but it’s more code to maintain.

If you want, I can give you a Boost.Beast + PostgreSQL login REST API skeleton that is production-safe and works directly with your userTable. That would get you running on Apache with only Boost + libpqxx, no other frameworks.

Ok so with dragon its good library utility which will make my programming easy

Exactly 👍

With Drogon, you’re basically getting:

Built-in HTTP server (async, high-performance)
Routing (app().registerHandler("/login", ...)) without manually parsing request targets
Built-in JSON handling (no need to integrate Boost.JSON manually)
ORM for PostgreSQL/MySQL/SQLite (no raw SQL unless you want it)
Middleware support (for authentication, logging, rate limiting)
Session/JWT helpers
SSL/HTTPS config out of the box
Static file serving if you want a web front-end served from the same server

So instead of spending weeks writing the HTTP plumbing in Boost.Beast, you can focus on your logic — like querying your userTable and verifying login — while Drogon handles the “server-y” parts.

Performance-wise, Drogon is still built on Boost.Asio, so you’re not losing speed compared to hand-written Boost.Beast, but you gain a lot of ready-made utilities.

If you want a fast start, Drogon is better.
If you want total control and minimal dependencies, Boost.Beast is better.

If you want, I can show you a Drogon + PostgreSQL login API that’s less than 50 lines of real logic and is production-ready. That way you can compare it with the Boost-only version.

if I use dragon do I still need apache server

No, if you use Drogon, you do not strictly need Apache as a front-facing server.

Why?

Drogon includes a high-performance built-in HTTP(S) server. It can listen directly on your VM’s IP and serve requests on ports like 80/443.
It handles HTTP/1.1 (and HTTP/2 if configured), SSL/TLS, routing, and all REST logic internally.
So you can expose Drogon directly to the internet without Apache or Nginx in front.

When might you still want Apache/Nginx?

You want to serve static websites (HTML/CSS/JS) alongside your API.
You need reverse proxying for multiple services running on different ports.
You want advanced load balancing, caching, or WAF (web application firewall) features.
You want to centralize SSL termination and manage certificates via Apache/Nginx.
You want easier integration with existing Apache modules or .htaccess rules.

Summary

Setup	When to use
Drogon standalone	Simple, performant REST API service without extra HTTP servers
Apache + Drogon proxy	Complex environment, multiple services, static web hosting, advanced security

In most modern microservices / API-only setups, running Drogon alone is enough.

If you want, I can help you configure Drogon to serve securely (HTTPS) directly on your Ubuntu VM — no Apache needed.

ok so dragon is specially designed to handle https request directly without need of apache server. Is dragon FCGI/ CGI from inside. I mean will it start seperate prrogram for each request like CGI?

Right — Drogon is designed as a standalone high-performance HTTP/HTTPS server and does NOT use CGI or FastCGI internally.

How Drogon works internally:

Drogon runs as a single server process (or multi-threaded), listening on a port (e.g., 80 or 443).
It handles multiple concurrent connections asynchronously using Boost.Asio under the hood.
Each HTTP request is processed in the same process/thread pool, no spawning of new processes per request.
This makes it very fast and scalable — no process creation overhead like CGI.

Contrast with CGI / FastCGI:

Feature	CGI	FastCGI	Drogon
Process per request	Yes (fork on each)	No (persistent)	No (single multi-threaded server)
Performance	Slow	Faster	Very fast, async, modern
Architecture	External program	External daemon	Built-in HTTP server

Summary:

Drogon is NOT CGI or FastCGI — it’s a full HTTP server.
You don’t need Apache or Nginx to run Drogon, but you can use them as reverse proxies if you want.
Drogon’s model is like Node.js/Express or Go net/http — one process handles many requests asynchronously.

If you want, I can help you write a simple Drogon REST API example and show you how to run it as a service on Ubuntu.

what will be pros n cons of not use apache and only dragon in future?

Great question! Here’s a clear breakdown of the pros and cons of using Drogon standalone (without Apache) for your REST API, versus putting Apache in front.

✅ Pros of Using Drogon Alone (No Apache)

Simplicity and Lower Overhead
- No extra web server layer → fewer components to install, configure, and maintain.
- Direct control over HTTP, routing, SSL, and application logic in one place.
Performance
- Drogon is asynchronous and event-driven, so it can handle many concurrent connections efficiently without the overhead of proxying.
- Avoids the slight latency added by Apache reverse proxy.
Ease of Deployment
- Single binary/service to deploy and monitor.
- Easier to debug as all logs and errors come from one place.
Modern Architecture Ready
- Fits microservices/container environments well (e.g., Docker, Kubernetes).
- Supports HTTP/2 and HTTPS natively without external config.
Flexibility
- Full control over request handling, middleware, and response pipeline.
- Easier to add custom protocols or websockets if needed.

❌ Cons of Using Drogon Alone (No Apache)

Static File Serving Limitations
- Drogon can serve static files, but Apache/Nginx are more robust and optimized for this.
- If you need to serve large websites or lots of static assets, dedicated web servers excel.
SSL/TLS Management Complexity
- Apache/Nginx have mature integrations with cert tools like Let’s Encrypt, auto-renewal, and advanced SSL configs.
- Drogon can do HTTPS, but you might have to implement renewal or management logic yourself.
No Built-in Reverse Proxy / Load Balancing
- Apache/Nginx can proxy requests to multiple backend servers or instances and do load balancing, caching, compression, rate limiting.
- If you want to scale horizontally or do advanced traffic management, you’ll need extra tools.
Security Modules and Features
- Apache has mature security modules (mod_security, mod_evasive, etc.) which help protect against attacks.
- Drogon’s security depends on your application code, so you must handle those aspects manually.
Maturity and Ecosystem
- Apache has decades of stability, extensive documentation, and a huge ecosystem.
- Drogon is newer; while modern and performant, it may have fewer third-party integrations.

When to use Drogon standalone vs Apache + Drogon

Scenario	Use Drogon alone	Use Apache + Drogon
Simple API backend only	✅ Fastest, simplest deployment	❌ Extra overhead, unnecessary
Serving large static websites	❌ Not ideal	✅ Apache excels here
Need SSL cert automation	Possible but requires setup	✅ Easier with Apache/Certbot integration
Multiple backend services	❌ No load balancing	✅ Apache handles proxy + load balancing
Need advanced HTTP security	Manual coding needed	✅ Use Apache modules
Hosting legacy web apps + API	❌ Difficult	✅ Apache can serve legacy apps + proxy API

Summary

For a pure REST API microservice, especially one deployed on a VM or container, Drogon alone is efficient, simple, and fast.
For complex web hosting needs, SSL management, and multi-service environments, Apache adds value.

If you want, I can help you set up Drogon with automated SSL, or show how to combine it with Apache proxy for a hybrid setup.

Ok so if I wn to scale big in future I should go with apache.

Scaling big doesn’t strictly require Apache, but Apache (or Nginx) does make certain aspects of scaling easier and more robust, especially in complex environments. Here’s a clearer picture:

When scaling big, Apache (or a similar reverse proxy/load balancer) helps you with:

Load balancing across multiple Drogon instances
Apache can distribute incoming requests across many backend Drogon servers running on different machines or ports, balancing load efficiently.
SSL termination and certificate management
Apache can handle HTTPS connections, including automatic Let’s Encrypt renewals, offloading encryption overhead from Drogon servers.
Caching and compression
Apache can cache static or dynamic content and compress responses to reduce bandwidth and improve latency.
Security layers
Modules like mod_security provide web application firewall (WAF) features, protecting your backend from common attacks.
Centralized logging, monitoring, and access control
Apache’s mature logging system makes monitoring and auditing easier.
Serving static assets
Apache can efficiently serve static files while Drogon focuses solely on API logic.

But scaling without Apache is also possible:

You can run multiple Drogon instances behind a dedicated load balancer (like HAProxy, AWS ELB, or Kubernetes Ingress).
Use service mesh or cloud-native networking for traffic routing and security.
Manage SSL termination with a dedicated proxy or Let’s Encrypt client inside Drogon (more complex).
Implement your own caching and rate-limiting middleware in Drogon or use external caching layers (Redis, CDN).

So…

Approach	When to prefer
Drogon + Apache (or Nginx)	If you want mature, battle-tested infrastructure, easier ops, and a wide ecosystem. Great for big deployments on VMs or bare metal.
Drogon alone + Cloud/Service Mesh	If you deploy on Kubernetes or cloud platforms with managed load balancers, or want to minimize components.

TL;DR

For big, production-grade scaling on VMs or physical servers, Apache (or Nginx) as a reverse proxy + Drogon backend is the safest, most flexible bet.
For cloud-native microservices, you can skip Apache and use cloud load balancers plus Drogon.
Drogon is efficient enough to be scaled horizontally; the reverse proxy/load balancer’s role is mostly traffic management, security, and SSL.

If you want, I can help you design a scalable architecture with Drogon + Apache or cloud-native tools tailored to your project needs.

with only apache+boost how to handle http request for my rest api service. Please provide code example with user authentcation, login, session, logout etc for apache server in Ubuntu VM instance

A high-performance Boost.Beast HTTP server
Routes: POST /login, GET /me, POST /logout
Stateless-ish Bearer token auth via an in-memory session store (swap to Redis later)
PostgreSQL access via libpqxx (userTable(name, password, id, ...))
Clean router + connection classes, constant-time compare, and token generation using OpenSSL

Build

bash
sudo apt install g++ make libboost-all-dev libssl-dev libpqxx-dev
g++ -std=c++20 -O3 -flto -DNDEBUG -pthread \
  boost_beast_rest_auth.cpp -o restapi \
  -lssl -lcrypto -lpqxx -lpq -lboost_system

Run:

bash
export PG_CONN="postgresql://user:pass@127.0.0.1:5432/yourdb"
./restapi   # listens on :8080 by default

Apache reverse proxy (Ubuntu)

Enable proxy & restart:

bash
sudo a2enmod proxy proxy_http headers ssl
sudo tee /etc/apache2/sites-available/restapi.conf >/dev/null <<'EOF'
<VirtualHost *:80>
  ServerName your.domain.com
  ProxyPreserveHost On
  RequestHeader set X-Forwarded-Proto "http"
  ProxyPass        /api/ http://127.0.0.1:8080/
  ProxyPassReverse /api/ http://127.0.0.1:8080/
</VirtualHost>
EOF
sudo a2ensite restapi && sudo systemctl reload apache2

Now your endpoints are:

POST /api/login { "username": "...", "password": "..." }
GET /api/me with Authorization: Bearer <token>
POST /api/logout with Authorization: Bearer <token>

Security & production notes

Replace the placeholder password check with bcrypt/argon2 (keep the constant-time compare logic).
- Quick option: store Argon2/bcrypt hashes in DB; verify in code with a vetted library.
Move sessions to Redis (LRU/expiry) for multi-instance scale. You already have a Redis wrapper—drop it in.
Put rate limiting (per-IP / per-user) in front (Apache mod_evasive or a small token bucket middleware).
Terminate TLS in Apache (Let’s Encrypt + Certbot) and proxy to this server over loopback.
For memory efficiency: keep short connection/read timeouts, reuse DB connections (small pool), and tune thread count (std::thread::hardware_concurrency() is already used).

If you want, I can also add:

A tiny libpqxx pool,
Redis-backed SessionStore, and
A systemd service file for restapi
directly into the canvas.

Ok for incoming request in server in above boost beast is used, but can I also use libcurl instead of boost beast to do the same work

No — libcurl won’t work as a replacement for Boost.Beast in your REST API server.

Here’s why:

libcurl is a client-side HTTP(S) library
- It’s designed to send requests to other servers, not accept requests from browsers or API clients.
- You use libcurl when your program wants to call someone else’s API.
- Example: pulling stock prices from a remote endpoint.
Boost.Beast is a server+client library
- It can accept HTTP(S) requests, parse them, and send responses — exactly what a REST API server needs.
- It runs the listening socket, manages connections, parses HTTP headers, and builds responses.

So in your Apache+Boost setup:

Boost.Beast handles incoming HTTP requests from Apache (or directly from clients if no Apache).
libcurl could still be useful inside your server if your REST API needs to call other APIs during a request.

Example hybrid use case:

Your user calls GET /api/livePrice → handled by Beast listener.
Your handler code uses libcurl to fetch the latest data from NSE’s API.
Your server sends the processed response back to the user.

If you really want to serve HTTP without Boost.Beast or any server lib, you’d need:

Apache (with CGI/FCGI modules) to run your C++ program per request,
Or another HTTP server library (Pistache, Drogon, Restinio, etc.).

If you want, I can give you an example of Apache CGI REST API in C++ without Boost.
That will show the libcurl part only as a client, but server logic will be Apache’s job.

Ohhh so libcurl is mainly a client side good thing for sending request to server n receiving response. Not meant for sending responces as per requests received on server machine!

Exactly ✅

libcurl is like the browser’s network engine — it knows how to make HTTP/HTTPS requests and read responses, but it doesn’t know how to listen for incoming connections.

So:

Client role (libcurl) → “I want to talk to some server.”
Server role (Boost.Beast, Drogon, Pistache, Apache, etc.) → “I will wait here, accept connections, and respond to whoever talks to me.”

If your Ubuntu VM is going to be the REST API provider, you’ll need a server-side library or Apache’s CGI/FCGI handling.

You can still mix them: server logic in Boost.Beast, and whenever you need to call other APIs from inside your server, you use libcurl.

If you want, I can show a minimal Apache CGI C++ example so you can see how it works without Beast. That’ll make the server/client difference very clear.

So any such good lib in pure C like libcurl is in client side, corresponding thing in server side (highly secure, ...)

Yes — there are a few pure C libraries that are to the server side what libcurl is to the client side.
They let you write a standalone HTTP(S) server directly in C without Apache or Boost.

Here are the most notable ones:

Library	Language	HTTPS Support	Pros	Cons
libmicrohttpd (GNU)	C	Yes (via GnuTLS or OpenSSL)	Very small, stable, easy to integrate; single/multithreaded modes; BSD/GPL	Lower-level than C++ libs — you manually parse routes, cookies, etc.
CivetWeb	C (also C++)	Yes (OpenSSL, mbedTLS)	Single-file embeddable; can serve static + dynamic; permissive license	Routing & middleware are basic — not full REST framework
Mongoose (Cesanta)	C	Yes (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, WolfSSL)	Extremely small footprint; embedded systems ready; permissive license	Commercial license for some use cases
libevhtp	C	Yes (via OpenSSL)	Built on libevent; fast, good for high concurrency	No longer actively maintained, less community support

Which one is closest in philosophy to libcurl?

libmicrohttpd → Minimal, pure C, embeddable in any app, stable API for a decade.
It’s the “libcurl” of HTTP servers. You give it a callback, it calls you whenever a request comes in.
Example:

c
#include <microhttpd.h>
#include <string.h>

static int answer(void *cls, struct MHD_Connection *connection,
                  const char *url, const char *method,
                  const char *version, const char *upload_data,
                  size_t *upload_data_size, void **con_cls) {
    const char *page = "<html><body>Hello, world!</body></html>";
    struct MHD_Response *response;
    int ret;

    response = MHD_create_response_from_buffer(strlen(page),
                                               (void*) page,
                                               MHD_RESPMEM_PERSISTENT);
    ret = MHD_queue_response(connection, MHD_HTTP_OK, response);
    MHD_destroy_response(response);
    return ret;
}

int main() {
    struct MHD_Daemon *daemon;
    daemon = MHD_start_daemon(MHD_USE_SELECT_INTERNALLY, 8888, NULL, NULL,
                              &answer, NULL, MHD_OPTION_END);
    if (NULL == daemon) return 1;
    getchar(); // keep running until key pressed
    MHD_stop_daemon(daemon);
    return 0;
}

Run it, and http://localhost:8888 will say "Hello, world!".
If you enable TLS, it can do HTTPS directly — no Apache needed.

Security-wise

libmicrohttpd, Mongoose, and CivetWeb all support TLS via well-tested SSL libraries (OpenSSL, GnuTLS, mbedTLS).
You must still handle authentication, rate limiting, and sanitizing inputs — the library won’t magically do that for you.

If you want, I can give you a pure C libmicrohttpd login/session/logout REST API skeleton — same as what you asked for in Boost.Beast but entirely in C.
That would be the “server twin” to libcurl.

Ok can't apache server with its buit in library handle rest api requests in FCGI mode from client, and I will only use boost json? For connection pooling I will use pgbouncer

Yes — Apache can absolutely do that.

If you go Apache + FCGI mode:

Apache’s job
- Listens on HTTP/HTTPS ports.
- Handles TLS termination (no need to deal with OpenSSL in your code).
- Handles connection concurrency, slow-client mitigation, etc.
- Passes the request to your FastCGI app over a local socket or TCP.
Your C/C++ FastCGI app
- Reads the HTTP request (headers, body) from stdin via FCGI protocol.
- Parses JSON payloads (Boost.JSON in your case).
- Talks to PostgreSQL via connection pooler (pgbouncer).
- Sends HTTP headers + JSON response back to Apache via stdout.

Why this can work well for you

Security: Apache is hardened, battle-tested, handles HTTPS without extra work.
Performance: You keep long-running FastCGI processes (unlike old CGI which forks per request).
Simplicity: No need to write HTTP server code — just parse environment variables & stdin.
Scaling: Apache can spawn multiple FCGI worker processes, and you can put pgbouncer in front of PostgreSQL.

Minimal flow

Client → HTTPS request to Apache.
Apache mod_fcgid (or mod_fastcgi) forwards to your binary (long-running process).
Your C++ code uses:
- Boost.JSON to parse request/format response.
- libpq (or wrapper) to query DB.
Apache sends the response back to the client.

Skeleton in C++ with FastCGI

cpp
#include <fcgiapp.h>
#include <boost/json.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>

int main() {
    FCGX_Init();
    FCGX_Request request;
    FCGX_InitRequest(&request, 0, 0);

    while (FCGX_Accept_r(&request) == 0) {
        // Get HTTP method
        const char* method = FCGX_GetParam("REQUEST_METHOD", request.envp);

        // Read body from stdin
        std::string body;
        char buf[1024];
        std::cin.rdbuf()->pubsetbuf(0, 0); // disable buffering
        while (std::cin.read(buf, sizeof(buf)) || std::cin.gcount())
            body.append(buf, std::cin.gcount());

        // Parse JSON
        boost::json::value jv = boost::json::parse(body);

        // TODO: authenticate user via DB

        // Prepare JSON response
        boost::json::object res;
        res["status"] = "ok";
        std::string res_str = boost::json::serialize(res);

        // Send headers + body
        FCGX_FPrintF(request.out,
            "Content-Type: application/json\r\n"
            "Content-Length: %zu\r\n"
            "\r\n%s",
            res_str.size(), res_str.c_str()
        );

        FCGX_Finish_r(&request);
    }
    return 0;
}

Then configure Apache with:

apache
LoadModule fcgid_module modules/mod_fcgid.so

<VirtualHost *:443>
    ServerName example.com
    SSLEngine on
    SSLCertificateFile /path/to/cert.pem
    SSLCertificateKeyFile /path/to/key.pem

    DocumentRoot /var/www/html

    ScriptAlias /api/ /path/to/your/fcgi-bin/
    <Directory "/path/to/your/fcgi-bin">
        Options +ExecCGI
        SetHandler fcgid-script
    </Directory>
</VirtualHost>

If you go this way, you don’t need Boost.Beast or any HTTP server library — Apache does the heavy lifting.
You just focus on request parsing, DB access, and response generation.

If you want, I can give you a full Apache FCGI + Boost.JSON login/session/logout example with pgbouncer so it’s production-ready from the start. That would make your stack minimal and scalable.

Then I will not need any dragon, boost beast, other C/C++ lib, etc I will only need apache server with fcgi(with built in libraries to handle https requests), pgBouncer, and json lib(Eg boost json) and my entire rest api server setup is done. I can do user login/ logout/ authentication/ session managemnt/ provide service to request services, etc in full secure manner .

Exactly — that’s the beauty of going Apache + FCGI + pgbouncer + Boost.JSON:

What you get with this setup

HTTPS handled entirely by Apache
- No need to mess with OpenSSL in C/C++ — Apache terminates TLS.
- Certificates, ciphers, and protocols are handled in Apache config.
Security & Stability
- Apache has decades of hardening, slow-client protection, DoS mitigations, etc.
- mod_fcgid (or mod_fastcgi) keeps your app alive between requests, avoiding fork-per-request overhead.
Scalability
- Apache can spawn multiple FastCGI workers (your app instances).
- pgbouncer keeps DB connection usage under control.
Simplicity
- No HTTP server library needed (no Dragon, no Boost.Beast).
- Your C/C++ code just reads request data (from stdin) + env vars, parses JSON, talks to DB, returns JSON.

Your stack will look like this

perl
Client Browser/App
       ↓ HTTPS
Apache Server (mod_fcgid)
       ↓ FastCGI socket (local)
Your C++ REST API app
       ↓ libpq  (via pgbouncer)
PostgreSQL DB

Your app’s responsibilities

Parse HTTP request body (Boost.JSON).
Read headers (from FastCGI env vars).
Authenticate users (check password hash in DB).
Maintain session tokens (JWT or DB session table).
Return JSON responses with proper HTTP status codes.

You do NOT need

No Boost.Beast (HTTP server part handled by Apache).
No Dragon (same reason).
No OpenSSL coding (TLS in Apache).
No extra thread pool handling — Apache handles concurrency.

When this is a good choice

✅ You want something secure & battle-tested.
✅ You want to avoid implementing HTTP/TLS parsing yourself.
✅ You can tolerate a tiny bit of Apache overhead for easier scaling & security.

If you like, I can give you a ready-to-run full Apache FCGI C++ REST API skeleton with:

Login
Logout
Session token management (DB-backed)
Role-based authentication
pgbouncer connection pooling

That way you could literally drop it into /usr/lib/cgi-bin and have a working secure REST API over HTTPS.

Do you want me to prepare that?

yes please provide login, logout, session token management (DB-backed), role-based authentication, pgbouncer connection pooling (I already know how to do that) for apache fchi cpp rest api skeleton so that I can start production coding

What you get:

POST /login → verifies user, creates DB-backed session token, returns {token,user_id,roles}
GET /me → validates Authorization: Bearer <token> and returns user info
GET /admin → example role-based protected route (requires ROLE_ADMIN)
POST /logout → deletes session in DB
Prepared statements and minimal allocations; one PG connection per worker (works great with PgBouncer)
No HTTP server library needed — Apache handles HTTPS and concurrency; your app only reads env + stdin and writes JSON

Build (Ubuntu):

bash
sudo apt install g++ libfcgi-dev libpq-dev libssl-dev libboost-json-dev
g++ -std=c++20 -O3 -flto -DNDEBUG -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti \
  apache_fcgi_rest_skeleton.cpp -o api.fcgi \
  -lfcgi -lpq -lssl -lcrypto -lboost_json

Key production notes (please read):

Replace passwordVerify with a real hasher (Argon2id/bcrypt). The function is stubbed for clarity.
Ensure Apache passes the Authorization header (config snippet in the file).
The SQL schema for users (roles bitmask) and sessions is included at the bottom of the file.
Tune mod_fcgid limits and set PG_CONN (or use FcgidInitialEnv) to point at PgBouncer.

If you want, I can extend this with:

Argon2id/bcrypt verification (libsodium or argon2)
A tiny statement wrapper and error → JSON mapper
systemd unit + Apache site template + ab/wrk perf tips

Tell me which bits you want next, and I’ll add them directly into the canvas.

Blog - Mohit Kumar Gupta

Create, activate, deavtivate python virtual environment in ubuntu terminal: chatGpt discussions