I found your tone disappointing and to some degree upsetting, but I will try
to stay objective. (I had a few hours to calm down.)
2011/2/3 Michael Snoyman
Maybe I should have been more conservative in my previous comments: assuming that this http-types package is not vastly different than what I'm already using I can support it. I have no intention of breaking API compatibility for no reason. Neither change you've mentioned so far (Method and ditching CIByteString) seems like a wise move to me.
First of all, it is simply not possible to avoid API breakage: WAI is not the only relevant package, even YOUR OWN package http-enumerator uses different types. Given that you break APIs almost regularly, I think you could find a way to do this. Secondly, please provide reasons for why said things are not wise moves. If you want to command me, pay me or do this yourself, but given that you do neither, I demand explanations, reasoning and debate. I did not even claim that I want to ditch CIByteString, just that I am unsure how to proceed with it. Note that you yourself do not even use CIByteString consistently: You use it for the header names in WAI, but not for Method, and not at all in http-enumerator.
It seems prudent to point out that WAI started off closer to the package you're designing now, and after input from others and some experience got to where it is now. I don't want it to take a step backwards.
It is probably irrational, but I take pride in what I do, and I do not like when people call it "a step backwards" without any explanation whatsoever. Aristid