I think b11 can go ahead. Gary
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 12:33 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-01 at 09:54 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 9:43 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 9:23 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:47 AM Michael Osipov < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Am 2020-01-01 um 14:45 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski: > > > > > > Folks > > > > > > > > > > > > Shall I proceed with HttpCore 5.0-beta11 release or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we still need to rename anything in core? > > > > > > > > > > Nothing left on my list. From my POV, you may go ahead. Gary, > > > > > Ryan? > > > > > > > > We did a good but partial job of cleaning up enums. Specifically, > > > > we did not circle back to our dual AuthSchemes and AuthScheme > > > > types. > > > > > > > > I will experiment now with something like renaming AuthSchemes to > > > > StandardAuthScheme and having it implement an interface > > > > lie AuthScheme. > > > > > > > > > > A very quick look suggests that such a design will not work since > > > AuthScheme implementations carry state. > > > > > > At the very least we should rename AuthSchemes to > > > StandardAuthScheme. > > > > > > WDYT? I'll make a PR. > > > > > > > This is for the client, not core, doh. > > > > Gary, > > Is there _anything_ that blocks the release of _core_ in your opinion? > While core is being released there will still be time to work on > client. > > Oleg > > >
