Just as an update, I've made the following changes to my WAI git repo (
http://github.com/snoyberg/wai):
* I removed the RequestBody(Class) bits, and replaced them with IO (Maybe
ByteString). This is a good example of tradeoffs versus the enumerator
approach (see below).
* This might just be
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:31:47 +0200, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
Just as an update, I've made the following changes to my WAI git repo (
http://github.com/snoyberg/wai):
* I removed the RequestBody(Class) bits, and replaced them with IO (Maybe
ByteString). This is a good
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Nicolas Pouillard
nicolas.pouill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:31:47 +0200, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com
wrote:
Just as an update, I've made the following changes to my WAI git repo (
http://github.com/snoyberg/wai):
* I removed the
Mark, thanks for the response, it's very well thought out. Let me state two
things first to explain some of my design decisions.
Firstly, I'm shooting for lowest-common-denominator here. Right now, I see
that as the intersection between the CGI backend and a standalone server
backend; I think
I like this project! Thanks for resurrecting it!
Some thoughts:
Methods in HTTP are extensible. The type RequestMethod should probably have a
catchall constructor
| Method B.ByteString
Other systems (the WAI proposal on the Wiki, Hack, etc...) have broken the path
into two parts:
