On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz
I agree with most things.
2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman
* 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, but 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