I was in meeting all day, hence the late reply. On 07 Jan 2011, at 14:08, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Sven > > two questions: > - if we want to use zn for pharo to replace HTTPSocket, don't you think > that Zinc-HTTP-Client-Server should be split into pieces. I don't think that would make a lot of sense: HTTP is a client-server protocol, the client and server sides have a lot in common; a split in three pieces would be possible but each piece would be rather small. Having the necessary pieces for a simple HTTP server present will lower the bar for others, so that makes sense too. (For example, the Seaside adaptor is really very little code, no more need for Kom unless you really want it). > - do you think that some parts of zinc could be reused to implement > other protocols such as POP, SMTP, IMAP? Maybe, finding shared code can only be done by doing both implementations I'm afraid ;-) Another, related point is the following: maybe you noticed browsing the code that I have a number of classes in Zn that redo some standard functionality (ZnMimeType, ZnUrl, ZnCharacterEncoder, and some of the code in the utils classes), a bit like Seaside does. The reason is that the existing classes were broken beyond repair (IMHO), or that I was not confortable extending them. Now, if the existing classes could be improved/replaced, it would make sense to replace the Zn variant with a good system wide one. This is a search for the best solution. Sven
