Does anyone have any objection to dropping the unitized interface for
`net/url'? Specifically, did anyone ever used it for any purpose
other than making up an `ssl:*' variant of the library?
I'm looking into making it deal properly with ssl connections, and I
think that the right way to do it is
I think we should not remove anything from the net/url library
(including the unitized interface) as I believe that will break old
code.
Robby
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to dropping the unitized interface for
`net/url'?
I appreciate the conscientiousness about backward-compatibility here,
but, as a data point of one developer, I would be happy to incur the
backward-incompatibility of option #1 in exchange for getting rid of the
Cookbook HTTPS hack sooner rather than later.
I also think that Eli's option #1
15 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
I think we should not remove anything from the net/url library
(including the unitized interface) as I believe that will break old
code.
This means one of 2.5 new options:
4. Create a new library that will do exactly what `net/url' is
doing, except
Two minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
I also think that Eli's option #1 could be done without breaking
backward-compatibility, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort in
code and documentation, and I don't want to discourage him moving
forward with #1 by making the task harder than it has to
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Two minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
I also think that Eli's option #1 could be done without breaking
backward-compatibility, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort in
code and documentation, and I don't want to
+1 to that sentiment.
I think this whole conversation is meant to be about how do we best
get from here to there. The question pending is how much is it
reasonable to break code that might use more obscure parts of the
current api. I'm taking the relatively hard-line stance that we should
not
It seems really bad form to take away the only option (it is the only
option when using net/url, right?) existing code has for using ssl in
order to provide a new way that isn't even something we consider the
final say.
No one seems to be actually taking the position of wanting to scuttle
the
About a minute ago, Robby Findler wrote:
It seems really bad form to take away the only option (it is the
only option when using net/url, right?) existing code has for using
ssl in order to provide a new way that isn't even something we
consider the final say.
Yes, that's exactly the point
9 matches
Mail list logo
