> [snip]
> > > That's my biggest problem with HttpClient as it is ... I'd really like
> to
> > > use it. However, it currently lacks a lot of support from the RFCs. We
> can
> > > see that is was designed and used for a given task at hand and not as
a
> > > generic component that could be used in lots of different scenarios
> (this
> > is
> > > not a rebuke, it is completely normal seen the history of it). I just
> hope
> > > that we will be able to change that and make it a fully generic and
> > > RFC-compliant framework in the future.
> >
> > I definitely don't agree on the genericity. What do you think is not
> generic
> > in the design ?
> > Also, there's a lot of features missing (the headers is a valid point,
but
> > you can easily implement that by *adding* a few methods; besides, I'll
> need
> > the feature for DASL).
> >
>
> Please accept my apologies regarding the genericity. It is not what I
meant
> actually (used wrong word :) ). I should have used completeness instead.
I was really surprised by the comment :) That was not something I was
expecting.
Lol.
> > I looked at it, and I don't really like the design the API.
> > I'm not too excited by the idea of making the API look like that.
>
> I have neither used it nor looked at it in details so I don't know if it
is
> good or not. We don't have to make HttpClient's API look like it !
>
> > Remy
>
> P.S.: Sorry about all my previous. Rereading them it realized it looks
like
> I'm that much happy with HttpClient which is really not the case ! :) I
> think it is a very useful package that can benefit a lot of other
projects.
> I'll wait for the 1.0 release (can it happen quickly ?) and then I'll try
to
> jump in and help (in the little time I have left. I guess it's the same
for
> all of us ... :) ).
Yes, I can release 1.0 soon. All I need is 3 votes :)
> Cheers, and thanks for taking the time to answer my numerous emails ...
No problem.
Remy
