Proposal: splitting the network package
michael at snoyman.com
Sun Feb 10 06:19:52 CET 2013
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu at iij.ad.jp> wrote:
>> > Well, that approach requires the creation of an extra package and
>> > deprecating the main package, forcing users to have to learn about a new
>> > package. I'd rather not have to rename a package just because I want to
>> > off one piece of functionality to a separate package.
>> I think that Michael should write two approaches in the document.
>> And we should choose one out of two for "network".
> I've written up the approach I advocated and put it in a Google
> document for comments. I'd rather not volunteer to write up an
> explanation of someone else's approach, as I might guess some of the
> details wrong.
> Note that my stated objectives (particularly 5) may go beyond what we'd
> previously been discussing here, but they all came up in my work on
> http-conduit/http-conduit-browser, so I think it likely that the need will
> resurface for someone else in the future.
> I'll be back online on Sunday to review comments and to add the second
> half on merge strategies (which admittedly I have not thought about quite
> as much). If there's consensus with the document, I can move it to the
> Haskell Wiki, or wherever else someone thinks would be more logical.
I've also added a section on merging.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries