[web-devel] Proposal: http-types

Michael Snoyman michael at snoyman.com
Wed Feb 2 14:38:04 CET 2011

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz
<aristidb at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I agree with most things.
> 2011/2/2 Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>> * 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

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.


More information about the web-devel mailing list