Alright. I'll issue another pull request to you when it's done (expect in a couple weeks).<div><br></div><div>Thanks for your input so far, Aristid and Michael.</div><div><br></div><div>@Chris Wong: Do you want to talk about the Suffix List stuff some time?</div>
<div><br></div><div>--Myles<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Michael Snoyman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
+1<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz<br>
<<a href="mailto:aristidb@googlemail.com">aristidb@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I would say: if it adds no package dependencies, put it right in.<br>
><br>
> Aristid<br>
><br>
> Am 06.02.2012 22:09 schrieb "Myles C. Maxfield" <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>><br>
>> After all these commits have been flying around, I have yet another<br>
>> question:<br>
>><br>
>> the 'HTTP' package defines Network.Browser which is a State monad which<br>
>> keeps state about a "browser" (i.e. a cookie jar, a proxy, redirection<br>
>> parameters, etc.) It would be pretty straightforward to implement this kind<br>
>> of functionality on top of http-conduit.<br>
>><br>
>> I was originally going to do it and release it as its own package, but it<br>
>> may be beneficial to add such a module to the existing http-conduit package.<br>
>> Should I add it in to the existing package, or release it as its own<br>
>> package?<br>
>><br>
>> --Myles<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Michael Snoyman <<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just an FYI for everyone: Myles sent an (incredibly thorough) pull<br>
>>> request to handle cookies:<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="https://github.com/snoyberg/http-conduit/pull/13" target="_blank">https://github.com/snoyberg/http-conduit/pull/13</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks!<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> > 1. The spec defines a grammar for the attributes. They're in uppercase.<br>
>>> > 2. Yes - 1.3 is the first version that lists DiffTime as an instance of<br>
>>> > RealFrac (so I can use the 'floor' function to pull out the number of<br>
>>> > seconds to render it)<br>
>>> > 3. I'll see what I can do.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > --Myles<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Michael Snoyman <<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>><br>
>>> > wrote:<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >> Looks good, a few questions/requests:<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >> 1. Is there a reason to upper-case all the attributes?<br>
>>> >> 2. Is the time >= 1.3 a requirements? Because that can cause a lot of<br>
>>> >> trouble for people.<br>
>>> >> 3. Can you send the patch as a Github pull request? It's easier to<br>
>>> >> track that way.<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >> Michael<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> > Here is the patch to Web.Cookie. I didn't modify the tests at all<br>
>>> >> > because<br>
>>> >> > they were already broken - they looked like they hadn't been updated<br>
>>> >> > since<br>
>>> >> > SetCookie only had 5 parameters. I did verify by hand that the patch<br>
>>> >> > works,<br>
>>> >> > though.<br>
>>> >> ><br>
>>> >> > Thanks,<br>
>>> >> > Myles<br>
>>> >> ><br>
>>> >> ><br>
>>> >> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> > <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >> Alright, I'll make a small patch that adds 2 fields to SetCookie:<br>
>>> >> >> setCookieMaxAge :: Maybe DiffTime<br>
>>> >> >> setCookieSecureOnly :: Bool<br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >> I've also gotten started on those cookie functions. I'm currently<br>
>>> >> >> writing<br>
>>> >> >> tests for them.<br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >> @Chris: The best advice I can give is that Chrome (what I'm using<br>
>>> >> >> as a<br>
>>> >> >> source on all this) has the data baked into a .cc file. However,<br>
>>> >> >> they<br>
>>> >> >> have<br>
>>> >> >> directions in a README and a script which will parse the list and<br>
>>> >> >> generate<br>
>>> >> >> that source file. I recommend doing this. That way, the Haskell<br>
>>> >> >> module<br>
>>> >> >> would<br>
>>> >> >> have 2 source files: one file that reads the list and generates the<br>
>>> >> >> second<br>
>>> >> >> file, which is a very large source file that contains each element<br>
>>> >> >> in<br>
>>> >> >> the<br>
>>> >> >> list. The list should export `elem`-type queries. I'm not quite<br>
>>> >> >> sure<br>
>>> >> >> how to<br>
>>> >> >> handle wildcards that appear in the list - that part is up to you.<br>
>>> >> >> Thanks<br>
>>> >> >> for helping out with this :]<br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >> --Myles<br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Michael Snoyman<br>
>>> >> >> <<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>><br>
>>> >> >> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> Looks good to me too. I agree with Aristid: let's make the change<br>
>>> >> >>> to<br>
>>> >> >>> cookie itself. Do you want to send a pull request? I'm also<br>
>>> >> >>> considering making the SetCookie constructor hidden like we have<br>
>>> >> >>> for<br>
>>> >> >>> Request, so that if in the future we realize we need to add some<br>
>>> >> >>> other<br>
>>> >> >>> settings, it doesn't break the API.<br>
>>> >> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> Chris: I would recommend compiling it into the module. Best bet<br>
>>> >> >>> would<br>
>>> >> >>> likely being converting the source file to Haskell source.<br>
>>> >> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> Michael<br>
>>> >> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> > Alright. After reading the spec, I have these questions /<br>
>>> >> >>> > concerns:<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > The spec supports the "Max-Age" cookie attribute, which<br>
>>> >> >>> > Web.Cookies<br>
>>> >> >>> > doesn't.<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > I see two possible solutions to this. The first is to have<br>
>>> >> >>> > parseSetCookie<br>
>>> >> >>> > take a UTCTime as an argument which will represent the current<br>
>>> >> >>> > time<br>
>>> >> >>> > so<br>
>>> >> >>> > it<br>
>>> >> >>> > can populate the setCookieExpires field by adding the Max-Age<br>
>>> >> >>> > attribute<br>
>>> >> >>> > to<br>
>>> >> >>> > the current time. Alternatively, that function can return an IO<br>
>>> >> >>> > SetCookie so<br>
>>> >> >>> > it can ask for the current time by itself (which I think is<br>
>>> >> >>> > inferior<br>
>>> >> >>> > to<br>
>>> >> >>> > taking the current time as an argument). Note that the spec says<br>
>>> >> >>> > to<br>
>>> >> >>> > prefer<br>
>>> >> >>> > Max-Age over Expires.<br>
>>> >> >>> > Add a field to SetCookie of type Maybe DiffTime which represents<br>
>>> >> >>> > the<br>
>>> >> >>> > Max-Age<br>
>>> >> >>> > attribute<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Cookie code should be aware of the Public Suffix List as a part<br>
>>> >> >>> > of<br>
>>> >> >>> > its<br>
>>> >> >>> > domain verification. The cookie code only needs to be able to<br>
>>> >> >>> > tell<br>
>>> >> >>> > if a<br>
>>> >> >>> > specific string is in the list (W.Ascii -> Bool)<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > I propose making an entirely unrelated package,<br>
>>> >> >>> > public-suffix-list,<br>
>>> >> >>> > with a<br>
>>> >> >>> > module Network.PublicSuffixList, which will expose this<br>
>>> >> >>> > function, as<br>
>>> >> >>> > well as<br>
>>> >> >>> > functions about parsing the list itself. Thoughts?<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Web.Cookie doesn't have a "secure-only" attribute. Adding one in<br>
>>> >> >>> > is<br>
>>> >> >>> > straightforward enough.<br>
>>> >> >>> > The spec describes cookies as a property of HTTP, not of the<br>
>>> >> >>> > World<br>
>>> >> >>> > Wide<br>
>>> >> >>> > Web.<br>
>>> >> >>> > Perhaps "Web.Cookie" should be renamed? Just a thought; it<br>
>>> >> >>> > doesn't<br>
>>> >> >>> > really<br>
>>> >> >>> > matter to me.<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > As for Network.HTTP.Conduit.Cookie, the spec describes in<br>
>>> >> >>> > section<br>
>>> >> >>> > 5.3<br>
>>> >> >>> > "Storage Model" what fields a Cookie has. Here is my proposal<br>
>>> >> >>> > for<br>
>>> >> >>> > the<br>
>>> >> >>> > functions it will expose:<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > receiveSetCookie :: SetCookie -> Req.Request m -> UTCTime -><br>
>>> >> >>> > Bool -><br>
>>> >> >>> > CookieJar -> CookieJar<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Runs the algorithm described in section 5.3 "Storage Model"<br>
>>> >> >>> > The UTCTime is the current-time, the Bool is whether or not the<br>
>>> >> >>> > caller<br>
>>> >> >>> > is an<br>
>>> >> >>> > HTTP-based API (as opposed to JavaScript or anything else)<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > updateCookieJar :: Res.Response a -> Req.Request m -> UTCTime -><br>
>>> >> >>> > CookieJar<br>
>>> >> >>> > -> (CookieJar, Res.Response a)<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Applies "receiveSetCookie" to a Response. The output CookieJar<br>
>>> >> >>> > is<br>
>>> >> >>> > stripped<br>
>>> >> >>> > of any Set-Cookie headers.<br>
>>> >> >>> > Specifies "True" for the Bool in receiveSetCookie<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > computeCookieString :: Req.Request m -> CookieJar -> UTCTime -><br>
>>> >> >>> > Bool<br>
>>> >> >>> > -><br>
>>> >> >>> > (W.Ascii, CookieJar)<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Runs the algorithm described in section 5.4 "The Cookie Header"<br>
>>> >> >>> > The UTCTime and Bool are the same as in receiveSetCookie<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > insertCookiesIntoRequest :: Req.Request m -> CookieJar -><br>
>>> >> >>> > UTCTime -><br>
>>> >> >>> > (Req.Request m, CookieJar)<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Applies "computeCookieString" to a Request. The output cookie<br>
>>> >> >>> > jar<br>
>>> >> >>> > has<br>
>>> >> >>> > updated last-accessed-times.<br>
>>> >> >>> > Specifies "True" for the Bool in computeCookieString<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > evictExpiredCookies :: CookieJar -> UTCTime -> CookieJar<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Runs the algorithm described in the last part of section 5.3<br>
>>> >> >>> > "Storage<br>
>>> >> >>> > Model"<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > This will make the relevant part of 'http' look like:<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > go count req'' cookie_jar'' = do<br>
>>> >> >>> > now <- liftIO $ getCurrentTime<br>
>>> >> >>> > let (req', cookie_jar') = insertCookiesIntoRequest req''<br>
>>> >> >>> > (evictExpiredCookies cookie_jar'' now) now<br>
>>> >> >>> > res' <- httpRaw req' manager<br>
>>> >> >>> > let (cookie_jar, res) = updateCookieJar res' req' now<br>
>>> >> >>> > cookie_jar'<br>
>>> >> >>> > case getRedirectedRequest req' (responseHeaders res)<br>
>>> >> >>> > (W.statusCode<br>
>>> >> >>> > (statusCode res)) of<br>
>>> >> >>> > Just req -> go (count - 1) req cookie_jar<br>
>>> >> >>> > Nothing -> return res<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > I plan to not allow for a user-supplied cookieFilter function.<br>
>>> >> >>> > If<br>
>>> >> >>> > they<br>
>>> >> >>> > want<br>
>>> >> >>> > that functionality, they can re-implement the<br>
>>> >> >>> > redirection-following<br>
>>> >> >>> > logic.<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Any thoughts on any of this?<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > Thanks,<br>
>>> >> >>> > Myles<br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> > <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> >> >>> > wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >> Nope. I'm not. The RFC is very explicit about how to handle<br>
>>> >> >>> >> cookies.<br>
>>> >> >>> >> As<br>
>>> >> >>> >> soon as I'm finished making sense of it (in terms of Haskell)<br>
>>> >> >>> >> I'll<br>
>>> >> >>> >> send<br>
>>> >> >>> >> another proposal email.<br>
>>> >> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >> On Feb 1, 2012 3:25 AM, "Michael Snoyman" <<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>><br>
>>> >> >>> >> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> You mean you're *not* making this proposal?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > Well, this is embarrassing. Please disregard my previous<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > email.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > I<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > should<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > learn to read the RFC *before* submitting proposals.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > --Myles<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> > <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Here are my initial ideas about supporting cookies. Note<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> that<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> I'm<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> using<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Chrome for ideas since it's open source.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Network/HTTP/Conduit/Cookies.hs file<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Exporting the following symbols:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> type StuffedCookie = SetCookie<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> A regular SetCookie can have Nothing for its Domain and<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Path<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> attributes. A<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> StuffedCookie has to have these fields set.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> type CookieJar = [StuffedCookie]<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Chrome's cookie jar is implemented as (the C++ equivalent<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> of)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Map<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> W.Ascii<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> StuffedCookie. The key is the "eTLD+1" of the domain, so<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> lookups<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> for<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> all<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> cookies for a given domain are fast.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> I think I'll stay with just a list of StuffedCookies just<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> to<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> keep<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> it<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> simple. Perhaps a later revision can implement the faster<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> map.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> getRelevantCookies :: Request m -> CookieJar -> UTCTime -><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> (CookieJar,<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Cookies)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Gets all the cookies from the cookie jar that should be set<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> for<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> given<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Request.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> The time argument is whatever "now" is (it's pulled out of<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> function so<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the function can remain pure and easily testable)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> The function will also remove expired cookies from the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> cookie<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> jar<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> (given<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> what "now" is) and return the filtered cookie jar<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> putRelevantCookies :: Request m -> CookieJar -><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> [StuffedCookie]<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> -><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> CookieJar<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Insert cookies from a server response into the cookie jar.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> The first argument is only used for checking to see which<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> cookies<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> are<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> valid (which cookies match the requested domain, etc, so<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> <a href="http://site1.com" target="_blank">site1.com</a><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> can't set<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> a cookie for <a href="http://site2.com" target="_blank">site2.com</a>)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> stuffCookie :: Request m -> SetCookie -> StuffedCookie<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> If the SetCookie's fields are Nothing, fill them in given<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Request<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> from<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> which it originated<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> getCookies :: Response a -> ([SetCookie], Response a)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Pull cookies out of a server response. Return the response<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> with<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Set-Cookie headers filtered out<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> putCookies :: Request a -> Cookies -> Request a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> A wrapper around renderCookies. Inserts some cookies into a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> request.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Doesn't overwrite cookies that are already set in the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> request<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> These functions will be exported from Network.HTTP.Conduit<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> as<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> well, so<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> callers can use them to re-implement redirection chains<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> I won't implement a cookie filtering function (like what<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Network.Browser<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> has)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> If you want to have arbitrary handling of cookies,<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> re-implement<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> redirection following. It's not very difficult if you use<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> API<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> provided,<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> and the 'http' function is open source so you can use that<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> as a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> reference.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> I will implement the functions according to RFC 6265<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> I will also need to write the following functions. Should<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> they<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> also be<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> exported?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> canonicalizeDomain :: W.Ascii -> W.Ascii<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> turns "..a.b.c..d.com..." to "<a href="http://a.b.c.d.com" target="_blank">a.b.c.d.com</a>"<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Technically necessary for domain matching (Chrome does it)<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Perhaps unnecessary for a first pass? Perhaps we can trust<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> users<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> for<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> now?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> domainMatches :: W.Ascii -> W.Ascii -> Maybe W.Ascii<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Does the first domain match against the second domain?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> If so, return the prefix of the first that isn't in the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> second<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> pathMatches :: W.Ascii -> W.Ascii -> Bool<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Do the paths match?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> In order to implement domain matching, I have to have<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> knowledge<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> of<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> the Public Suffix List so I know that<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> <a href="http://sub1.sub2.pvt.k12.wy.us" target="_blank">sub1.sub2.pvt.k12.wy.us</a><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> can<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> set<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> cookie for <a href="http://sub2.pvt.k12.wy.us" target="_blank">sub2.pvt.k12.wy.us</a> but not for <a href="http://k12.wy.us" target="_blank">k12.wy.us</a><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> (because<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> <a href="http://pvt.k12.wy.us" target="_blank">pvt.k12.wy.us</a><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> is a "suffix"). There are a variety of ways to implement<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> this.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> As far as I can tell, Chrome does it by using a script<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> (which a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> human<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> periodically runs) which parses the list at creates a .cc<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> file<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> that is<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> included in the build.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> I might be wrong about the execution of the script; it<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> might be<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> build<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> step. If it is a build step, however, it is suspicious that<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> a<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> build<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> target<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> would try to download a file...<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Any more elegant ideas?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Feedback on any/all of the above would be very helpful<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> before I<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> go<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> off<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> into the weeds on this project.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Thanks,<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Michael Snoyman<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> <<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, looks great! I've merged it into the Github tree.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Ah, yes, you're completely right. I completely agree<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > that<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > moving<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > function into the Maybe monad increases readability.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > This<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > kind<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > of<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > function<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > is what the Maybe monad was designed for.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Here is a revised patch.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Michael Snoyman<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > <<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> > wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Myles C. Maxfield<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> <<a href="mailto:myles.maxfield@gmail.com">myles.maxfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > the fromJust should never fail, beceause of the guard<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > statement:<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > | 300 <= code && code < 400 && isJust l'' &&<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > isJust<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > l' =<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > Just $<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > req<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > Because of the order of the && operators, it will<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > only<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > evaluate<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > fromJust<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > after it makes sure that the argument isJust. That<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > function<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > in<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > particular<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > shouldn't throw any exceptions - it should only<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > return<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > Nothing.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > Knowing that, I don't quite think I understand what<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > your<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > concern<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > is.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > Can<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > you<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> > elaborate?<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> You're right, but I had to squint really hard to prove<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> to<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> myself<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> that<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> you're right. That's the kind of code that could easily<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> be<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> broken<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> in<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> future updates by an unwitting maintainer (e.g., me).<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> To<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> protect<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> world from me, I'd prefer if the code didn't have the<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> fromJust.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> This<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> might be a good place to leverage the Monad instance of<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> Maybe.<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> Michael<br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> >><br>
>>> >> >>> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >>> ><br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> >><br>
>>> >> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>