On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I feel that the only thing it could do better is support two more >> options for #:data: >> - A input-port? to read from and copy to the HTTP connection >> - A (-> output-port? void) function to call with the HTTP connection's >> output port to stream the data >> >> But I'd like a second opinion before adding them. > > Those both sound great, but why force the second one return `void?` For > example, I might want to stream the data directly into a JSON parser.
The function would be given to the client so it can write the data to the server. For example: (... #:data #"Here's the post data") would be the same as (... #:data (\ (op) (display #"Here's the post data" op))) It's the HTTP connection's OUTPUT (to the server) port, not its INPUT (from the server) port. The return happens internally to the http-client and it doesn't have any reason to use any value produced. Jay -- Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
