I think we should not remove anything from the net/url library (including the unitized interface) as I believe that will break old code.
Robby On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Does anyone have any objection to dropping the unitized interface for > `net/url'? Specifically, did anyone ever used it for any purpose > other than making up an `ssl:*' variant of the library? > > I'm looking into making it deal properly with ssl connections, and I > think that the right way to do it is by making the code dispatch to > the plain tcp functions or the ssl versions based on the scheme of the > input url. > > 1. Looking at the code, there are only two tcp functions used > (`tcp-connect' and `tcp-abandon-port'), so eliminating the unit > interface and just hooking things up so that an "https" scheme uses > the ssl functions is relatively easy. > > 2. Another possibly solution is to make the `net/url-unit' import two > tcp units, one for plain connections and one for https connextions. > The problem with that is that it still breaks compatibility since > the imports are different. > > 3. Yet another solution is to make it do the same thing it does now, > but for "https" urls it will always use the ssl bindings. This > means that you can still parameterize the code over the tcp > functions, but "https" urls bypass that parameterization and use > the ssl things directly. > > I dislike #2 since it's making things even more hairy in the unit > sense, and I don't think that that's a good direction. I dislike #3 > since it feels like a bad hack. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
