Hi Dean, On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 09:47, Dean Michael Berris <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeroen, > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Jeroen Habraken <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Unfortunately it's been a while since you've heard from me but I've >> just committed a rewrite which turns the parser into a grammar. > > No worries. I'm looking at it right now and I'm having some trouble > merging to my local copy. I'll resolve issues locally first then see > if I can merge your implementation to master, and then pull it from my > 0.6-devel branch. > >> Michael Caisse brought this up, and it allows other people to reuse >> the Spirit URI rule inside their own parsers. Unfortunately the >> transition wasn't as easy as I initially anticipated, but Hartmut >> Kaiser has been a great help, thanks for answering all those >> questions! >> > > Cool. They're a great bunch of guys there at the Spirit Mailing list. :) > >> As a bonus I've included IPv4 support, and hope to add some smaller >> changes such as exposing the boost::optionals soon. I've had a shot at >> IPv6 support, but it's an enormous rule thus it'll require some >> optimisation. >> > > Sweet! We can worry about IPv6 later when the world starts catching up > and implementing it as the default instead of IPv4. :) > >> Yours, >> Jeroen Habraken >> >> P.S. Dean, could you please have a look at the current derived HTTP >> implementation, I'd really like to hear your opinion. >> > > I'll let you know if I find any glaring problems. > > Have a good day and you'd hopefully hear more from me soon. :) > > -- > Dean Michael Berris > cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris > linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com >
I saw you've merged my changes to master, yet I'd have preferred if you had waited for my pull request. I intended to add the boost::optional changes to the API first, to catch the breaking in one go, yet I'm honoured that you considered my code to be master-branch ready. Unfortunately with the merge you've reintroduced issue #3, something I hadn't patched as I was anticipating to merge upstream with my code before a pull-request. I've now merged upstream with my fork and issued a pull-request to fix this in the 0.6-devel branch, but it should be merged with master too. I'll also try to layout somewhat of roadmap for the URI code as some of the things I've mentioned before still have to be done: - A lot more tests need to be added - Documentation needs to be updated, and an the example should be expanded to show the use of scheme() for example - Another API change is coming up, which will expose the optional parameters as boost::optionals, instead of returning an empty default value On the longer term I'd like to get on the way with URI normalisation, but it still needs some pondering on how this will fit in the current code. Given the fact that 0.6 is planned for the end of February, my initial plan would be to finish what I'd hoped to do for 0.5, namely the three things above. Yours, Jeroen Habraken ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Cpp-netlib-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpp-netlib-devel
