
Indeed, I disagree on 2. Sometimes there is an API and cookies are just not
part of it (and redirects are).
Aristid
Am 23.01.2012 08:16 schrieb "Michael Snoyman"
The only times cookies would be used would be:
1. If you explicitly use it. 2. If you have redirects turned on, and a page that redirects you also sets a cookie.
I would think that we would want (2) to be on regardless of user setting, do you disagree?
Michael
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz
wrote: Just make sure Cookie handling can be disabled completely.
Aristid
Am 23.01.2012 07:44 schrieb "Michael Snoyman"
: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Myles C. Maxfield
wrote: 1. Oops - I overlooked the fact that the redirectCount attribute of a Request is exported (it isn't listed on the documentation probably because the constructor itself isn't exported. This seems like a flaw in Haddock...). Silly me. No need to export httpRaw.
2. I think that stuffing many arguments into the 'http' function is ugly. However, I'm not sure that the number of arguments to 'http' could
ever
reach an unreasonably large amount. Perhaps I have bad foresight, but I personally feel that adding cookies to the http request will be the last thing that we will need to add. Putting a bound on this growth of arguments
I completely disagree here. If we'd followed this approach, rawBody, decompress, redirectCount, and checkStatus all would have been arguments. There's a reason we use a settings data type[1] here.
[1] http://www.yesodweb.com/blog/2011/10/settings-types
makes me more willing to think about this option. On the other hand, using a BrowserAction to modify internal state is very elegant. Which approach do you think is best? I think I'm leaning toward the upper-level Browser module idea.
If there was to be a higher-level HTTP library, I would argue that the redirection code should be moved into it, and the only high-level function that the Network.HTTP.Conduit module would export is 'http' (or httpRaw). What do you think about this?
I actually don't want to move the redirection code out from where it is right now. I think that redirection *is* a basic part of HTTP. I'd be more in favor of just bundling cookies in with the current API, possibly with the IORef approach I'd mentioned (unless someone wants to give a different idea). Having a single API that provides both high-level and low-level approaches seems like a win to me.
Michael
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe