[web-devel] Proposal: http-types

[Aristid Breitkreuz]

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 <michael at snoyman.com>

> 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
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/web-devel/attachments/20110202/86e4757c/attachment.htm>