I would prefer option 1, too, that is keep network-uri independent from network. (I also think, the version number for network-uri could start at 1.0.) network-uri should be preferred over other "uri" packages [1] Cheers Christian [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/search?terms=uri Am 14.08.2014 15:49, schrieb Graham Klyne:
On 13/08/2014 13:02, Michael Snoyman wrote:
of network installed (e.g. via the HP), then building network is required to build network-uri. This probably isn't a problem on Windows, if we assume users already have an appropriate version of network through
It might be an inconvenience (e.g. longer build times) for users who don't use the HP but still want to build network-uri (e.g for the
My apologies. Let me clarify. If the user doesn't already have a version the HP. maintainer of
network-uri:) ).
Thanks for the clarifications Duncan and Johan. Yes, we should add a con to the option 2 that usage of network-uri will require network to be available. I'd consider this a relatively low-impact con, since I highly doubt there are many people out there who will want to use Network.URI but not also want to use network- at least transitively.
Hmmm... there are reasonable uses of URIs (e.g. in on-disk XML and RDF processing) that do not necessarily require use of networking. These may be a minority, but I think they're not so rare.
Also, my experience in other languages is that one may work with a web application framework (via something like WSGI), there can lots of URI handling code without any direct use of networking. Also, I do a lot of testing of URI handling code separately from any networking.
I think removing the URI handling dependency on networking would be a Good Thing.
#g
(developer of a past version of network-uri.)
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries