[web-devel] Proposal: http-types
aristidb at googlemail.com
Thu Feb 3 17:47:51 CET 2011
2011/2/3 Christian Maeder <Christian.Maeder at dfki.de>
> Am 02.02.2011 22:34, schrieb Aristid Breitkreuz:
> > This is not a problem because constructing OtherMethod "POST" is
> > forbidden and will/must never happen. byteStringToMethod will always
> > construct POST, and not OtherMethod "POST",
> My own conclusion is: avoid as many variants as possible, otherwise
> you'll get lots of repetitions of similar code. A single variant
> wrapping a String or ByteString is the best for uniform treatment (i.e.
> just for implementing show).
I don't see how it follows that there will be lots of repetitions of similar
code. Please explain why you think this occurs, and why it is presumably
hard to avoid.
In my, possibly naïve, view, you only need to implement methodToByteString
once, and methodToString can be implemented as B8.unpack .
> You loose (possibly faster and shorter) pattern matching, but I think it
> is just as good to use predefined constants and "==" for comparisons.
With my Method type you also get case-insensitivity for free. :-) And it
removes the temptation of just writing "PUT" instead of, say,
HTTP.methodPut. (You can get non-standard methods with byteStringToMethod,
which is a total function.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the web-devel