Re: [web-devel] Proposal: http-types

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. 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. Michael On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:

I'm not sure how to proceed with the Headers type. Or specifically the Header name type. WAI uses CIByteString, but I'm not sure if this approach can find a consensus... How should I proceed?

Aristid

2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman

...

I think there's general consensus that this package would be a Good Thing(tm), and at the least you'll have my support on it. I'm sure we can all quibble on details later, but I think the best thing now would be to have some actual code to look at.

Aristid, I'm assuming (hoping) you were volunteering to actually write and maintain this package, is that correct? I would recommend you get a project started (Github, BitBucket, PatchTag, wherever), getting up some code and then we can all nit-pick it to death ;).

Michael

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:

...

http-enumerator could at least for compatibility support a Request type with ByteString. And also a native request type. Or something along these lines. The problem is that I want to be able to use a Request type that is compatible between multiple client libraries, enabling me to theoretically switch implementations without a huge amount of hassle.

Aristid

2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman

...

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:

...

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