I agree with you, Dick.
I think we should focus on the tasks for release 1.0 at this point.
/Anne
Sent from my iPhone.
..if you thought my spelling was bad before
On 15. okt. 2009, at 19.32, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>
wrote:
To be truthful, I think we have other tasks that are more important
for the release - especially considering your limited amount of time.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this issue?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:30 PM, David Pollak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think writing the tests is a 2-6 hour task. Writing specs-based
tests for
parsers is pretty easy.
If we have to move over to a byte-based parsing paradigm, it's
probably
going to be be 1-2 days of work.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]
>wrote:
How much effort is involved to switch the parser to the byte-steam?
Testing the change could be done initially via the UI to speed
things
up.
D.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:14 PM, David Pollak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]
wrote:
OK - what do we have to do to solve the problem? Rewrite the
parser?
I'm not sure.
I think there are a couple of things... first, we can write some
unit
tests
for the elements of existing parser and see how it's failing for
particular
cases and if there's something that can be done.
If that doesn't work, we can change from stream of characters to
a stream
of
bytes. Most of the existing parsing logic should work (or be
easily
ported), but we'll have finer control over the byte-streams for
non-western
character sets.
D.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:00 PM, David Pollak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think part of the problem is that the RFC was written against a
byte-stream, but we're running the parser against a character
stream.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Xuefeng Wu <[email protected]>
wrote:
Thank you for your information.
What we should do for this now?
let the wrong thing stay or find out a resolution?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]
>
wrote:
Why the name is *escape*, anyone could explain?
I think most of the MsgParser concerning URLs is transformed
from
RFC1738 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html) BNF notation
into
Scala using parser combinators. So for any inconsistencies
you've
found the point of reference is this RFC.
As for the escape, it's a special character which modifies the
meaning
of the following characters (more info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_character). In the RFC the
escape
is defined like this:
escape = "%" hex hex
--
Global R&D Center,Shanghai China,Carestream Health, Inc.
Tel:(86-21)3852 6101
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics
