cabal-get minimizing

Shae Matijs Erisson shae at
Mon May 15 12:08:41 EDT 2006

Lemmih <lemmih at> writes:

>> Shae also suggested getting rid of xml-rpc.  I'm not totally against it, but
>> it would be nice if folks could easily write clients!  having a
>> hackage-client packages is helpful here, but it doesn't help for other
>> languages.  Suggestions?
> Writing a BEncode parser is almost simpler than learning to use an
> XML-toolkit.  Jokes aside, I think our convenience is paramount and
> inter-language integration should be secondary. If we can get this thing in
> the air then by all means lets do it and leave these issues to a later
> version.

I asked Isaac about this on irc, he said that xmlrpc keeps the complexity on
the server. That way computing dependencies, efficient lookup over large sets,
etc only depends on the clients knowing the names to call.

I asked Isaac how cabal-get compared to apt (Isaac wrote part of apt-secure),
he said that apt servers are simple but the client is extremely complex.
Because of that there is only one client, and there likely won't be more.
Isaac said he'd rather see simple clients and a complex server.

Anyway, I think we should just 'get it in the air' as Lemmih put it.
I've tried to teach people autodidactism,                |
but it seems they always have to learn it for themselves.| Shae Matijs Erisson

More information about the cabal-devel mailing list