[Haskell-cafe] Contributing to http-conduit
aristidb at googlemail.com
Mon Jan 23 08:42:35 CET 2012
Indeed, I disagree on 2. Sometimes there is an API and cookies are just not
part of it (and redirects are).
Am 23.01.2012 08:16 schrieb "Michael Snoyman" <michael at snoyman.com>:
> The only times cookies would be used would be:
> 1. If you explicitly use it.
> 2. If you have redirects turned on, and a page that redirects you also
> sets a cookie.
> I would think that we would want (2) to be on regardless of user
> setting, do you disagree?
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz
> <aristidb at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Just make sure Cookie handling can be disabled completely.
> > Aristid
> > Am 23.01.2012 07:44 schrieb "Michael Snoyman" <michael at snoyman.com>:
> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Myles C. Maxfield
> >> <myles.maxfield at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 1. Oops - I overlooked the fact that the redirectCount attribute of a
> >> > Request is exported (it isn't listed on the documentation probably
> >> > because
> >> > the constructor itself isn't exported. This seems like a flaw in
> >> > Haddock...). Silly me. No need to export httpRaw.
> >> >
> >> > 2. I think that stuffing many arguments into the 'http' function is
> >> > ugly.
> >> > However, I'm not sure that the number of arguments to 'http' could
> >> > reach an unreasonably large amount. Perhaps I have bad foresight, but
> >> > personally feel that adding cookies to the http request will be the
> >> > thing that we will need to add. Putting a bound on this growth of
> >> > arguments
> >> I completely disagree here. If we'd followed this approach, rawBody,
> >> decompress, redirectCount, and checkStatus all would have been
> >> arguments. There's a reason we use a settings data type here.
> >>  http://www.yesodweb.com/blog/2011/10/settings-types
> >> > makes me more willing to think about this option. On the other hand,
> >> > using a
> >> > BrowserAction to modify internal state is very elegant. Which approach
> >> > do
> >> > you think is best? I think I'm leaning toward the upper-level Browser
> >> > module
> >> > idea.
> >> >
> >> > If there was to be a higher-level HTTP library, I would argue that the
> >> > redirection code should be moved into it, and the only high-level
> >> > function
> >> > that the Network.HTTP.Conduit module would export is 'http' (or
> >> > httpRaw).
> >> > What do you think about this?
> >> I actually don't want to move the redirection code out from where it
> >> is right now. I think that redirection *is* a basic part of HTTP. I'd
> >> be more in favor of just bundling cookies in with the current API,
> >> possibly with the IORef approach I'd mentioned (unless someone wants
> >> to give a different idea). Having a single API that provides both
> >> high-level and low-level approaches seems like a win to me.
> >> Michael
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> >> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe