Awesome! I look forward to seeing this develop into the besr haskell http server library.
One thing I noticed is that you've recreated types for things like http method, headers, status, etc. Any reason not to use the types in http-types for these? Would you accept a pull request?
Rich
Awesome! I look forward to seeing this develop into the besr haskell http server library.
One thing I noticed is that you've recreated types for things like http method, headers, status, etc. Any reason not to use the types in http-types for these? Would you accept a pull request?
On Jul 6, 2013 1:43 PM, "Jeremy Shaw" <jer...@n-heptane.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Richard Wallace <rwal...@thewallacepack.net>
>> One thing I noticed is that you've recreated types for things like http method, headers, status, etc. Any reason not to use the types in http-types for these? Would you accept a pull request?
>
> It's too early to decide on that. Obviously if we can use it that would be good for interoperating with other libraries that use http-types.
>
It's fair enough that it might not be practical in the long run, but might it be better to start with the intention of using it, helping to evolve it where necessary, and only dropping use of it if it becomes absolutely necessary? I think the interoperability and collaboration with other, similar efforts would be of tremendous benefit for everyone.
Rich
There are more than just typedefs. There is StdMethod, HttpVersion, and Status. HeaderName and Header are just typedefs, but there are useful functions for working with the types and many of the standard values are defined. I'm curious what a new library would do differently.
Rich
It's fair enough that it might not be practical in the long run, but might it be better to start with the intention of using it, helping to evolve it where necessary, and only dropping use of it if it becomes absolutely necessary? I think the interoperability and collaboration with other, similar efforts would be of tremendous benefit for everyone.