[web-devel] Proposal: http-types
aristidb at googlemail.com
Wed Feb 2 23:53:25 CET 2011
I'm not sure how to proceed with the Headers type. Or specifically the
Header name type.
WAI uses CIByteString, but I'm not sure if this approach can find a
How should I proceed?
2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> I think there's general consensus that this package would be a Good
> Thing(tm), and at the least you'll have my support on it. I'm sure we
> can all quibble on details later, but I think the best thing now would
> be to have some actual code to look at.
> Aristid, I'm assuming (hoping) you were volunteering to actually write
> and maintain this package, is that correct? I would recommend you get
> a project started (Github, BitBucket, PatchTag, wherever), getting up
> some code and then we can all nit-pick it to death ;).
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz
> <aristidb at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > http-enumerator could at least for compatibility support a Request type
> > ByteString. And also a native request type. Or something along these
> > The problem is that I want to be able to use a Request type that is
> > compatible between multiple client libraries, enabling me to
> > switch implementations without a huge amount of hassle.
> > Aristid
> > 2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz
> >> <aristidb at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > I agree with most things.
> >> >
> >> > 2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> * Request and response datatypes themselves. I don't think this makes
> >> >> sense to put in http-types: just between WAI and http-enumerator I
> >> >> needed different versions of these.
> >> >
> >> > I think this is where we could derive most value, and it would be good
> >> > to
> >> > find a way to do it.
> >> > Request actually looks pretty similar in WAI as in http-enumerator,
> >> > Response is different. Maybe distinguish between client and server
> >> > versions
> >> > of Response?
> >> I'd be very surprised if those two can be meaningfully unified. What
> >> do you do about remoteHost and errorHandler? Also, it's more useful to
> >> have the request body for http-enumerator be an Enumerator of
> >> Builders, as opposed to WAI where we want an Enumerator of
> >> ByteStrings.
> >> I have no opposition to *having* a Request type in http-types (or
> >> whatever we call it), but I doubt anyone will actually use it, and I
> >> wouldn't even want it to include Builder due to the extra dependency.
> >> Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the web-devel