I see no reason *not* to include those in network-uri itself (I've actually given some thought to that), especially given that that it wouldn't be adding any new dependencies (network-uri will depend on parsec, which already depends on bytestring and text). However, I'd recommend adding those in a post-3.0 release, for two reasons:

1. I think as a general policy, package splitting/merging should not be accompanied by any other API changes, as that can be confusing for users.

2. Adding a new module like Network.URI.Text would not be a breaking change, so it won't cause any new upgrade issues in the future.

As far as implementation of such a library, we have plenty of good questions that come up (should we introduces an attoparsec dep here? should one of the implementations be the canonical one and the others just wrappers around it?), but I'd rather address those after this proposal comes to an end and we have network-uri as its own entity.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

while we're doing breaking changes, would adding bytestring.char and text support to a split out network-uri be in scope. OR should those be in their own wee packages?

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:
Hi,

> This was brought up last year[1], and I'd like to bring it up again, based
> on a recent issue I was working through with a user[2]. I realize that this
> is a breaking change, but:

+1

> 1. Create a new package, network-uri, version 2.5.0.0, which exposes no
> modules and has an upper bound `network < 2.6.

Yes, I think that we agreed with the package name of "network-uri".

> 2. Create a second release of network-uri, version 3.0.0.0, which provides
> the Network.URI module verbatim as provided by the network package today,
> and has a lower bound `network >= 3.0`.
> 3. Release network version 3.0.0.0, with no changes from the currently
> released version, except that (a) no Network.URI module is provided, and
> (b) there is no parsec dependency.
>
> I don't remember how the discussion went last time, but I seem to remember
> general consensus. I'd like to set a discussion period of two weeks (August
> 15).

The consensus was to separate the network-uri package from the network
package. We did not reach how to do it. But I think you should put it
forward because we should not repeat the plateau again.

--Kazu

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries