Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Thank you Peter! With some manual testing, it's working like expected here. K. On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 02:19:22PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: So here's a new poll: a) The current behaviour of resetting port to #f if it's the default port for this scheme is ok. b) The port should not be reset, and the uri should be printed with an explicit port, even if it's the default for this scheme. c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. I have now implemented c), and tagged release 1.4. Please give it a try! Kris, thanks for reporting this problem. Thanks Andy, John and Evan for supplying valuable feedback. Doing the right thing was tricky here. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 02:19:22PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: So here's a new poll: a) The current behaviour of resetting port to #f if it's the default port for this scheme is ok. b) The port should not be reset, and the uri should be printed with an explicit port, even if it's the default for this scheme. c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. I have now implemented c), and tagged release 1.4. Please give it a try! Kris, thanks for reporting this problem. Thanks Andy, John and Evan for supplying valuable feedback. Doing the right thing was tricky here. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
If we go for (b), we could also provide a normalize-uri-port which sets it to #f if it's already equal to the default port of its scheme. And perhaps an optional normalize? argument to the uri-string procedure? K. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Evan Hanson ev...@foldling.org wrote: On 2014-06-08 11:14, Peter Bex wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:01:01PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Peter Bex scripsit: c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. +1 for (c). hm, but if you really want to print http://foo:80/blabla, how should that work? In that case I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to define their own function to build a string from the URI's composite parts. We have to pick a default behavior one way or the other, and without the port seems like the better one to me. Regards, Evan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:01:01PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Peter Bex scripsit: c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. +1 for (c). hm, but if you really want to print http://foo:80/blabla, how should that work? Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Peter Bex scripsit: hm, but if you really want to print http://foo:80/blabla, how should that work? Why would you? It means exactly the same thing as http://foo/blabla and it's longer. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Go, and never darken my towels again! --Rufus T. Firefly ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Hi, So here's a new poll: a) The current behaviour of resetting port to #f if it's the default port for this scheme is ok. b) The port should not be reset, and the uri should be printed with an explicit port, even if it's the default for this scheme. c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. Once results are in, I'll adjust the behaviour accordingly, and make a new uri-common release. My vote is for (b) with the caveat that the port should not be printed if it is #f. Regards, @ndy -- andy...@ashurst.eu.org http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ 0x7EBA75FF ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On 2014-06-08 11:14, Peter Bex wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:01:01PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Peter Bex scripsit: c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. +1 for (c). hm, but if you really want to print http://foo:80/blabla, how should that work? In that case I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to define their own function to build a string from the URI's composite parts. We have to pick a default behavior one way or the other, and without the port seems like the better one to me. Regards, Evan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:18:14AM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: I realize I already put down my vote, but I'd like to promote my case after some thought. I guess what we're trying to find out is what's more troublesome and/or surprising: 1. having to set the port explicitly (to #f?) when you want to change the scheme and its port 2. having to set the port explicitly back to its original value if you want to change scheme but not its port I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to realize he/she has to change the port if he/she changes the port (as in 1.). That requires an understanding of the relationship between scheme and port by the user. I've now (finally!) changed the implementation not to switch ports when changing schemes (in uri-common trunk). However, taking a look at this behaviour caused me to question another thing: If a port is the default port for the scheme, should it be kept around? Right now, if you do (update-uri uri scheme: 'http port: 80) it will clear the port. This is done so that the uri will be printed as http://foo/bar rather than http://foo:80/bar, which would be redundant. Unfortunately, that also means that (uri-port (update-uri uri port: x)) may return either x or #f. And if you (update-uri (update-uri uri port: 80 scheme: 'http) scheme: 'https) that will result in the port not being 80. I can keep it like this, but I can also keep around the selected port. If that's done, it can still be decided to print the URI as http://foo/bar even if the (uri-port uri) returns 80. So here's a new poll: a) The current behaviour of resetting port to #f if it's the default port for this scheme is ok. b) The port should not be reset, and the uri should be printed with an explicit port, even if it's the default for this scheme. c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. Once results are in, I'll adjust the behaviour accordingly, and make a new uri-common release. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Peter Bex scripsit: c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without port if it's the default for this scheme. +1 for (c). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
I realize I already put down my vote, but I'd like to promote my case after some thought. I guess what we're trying to find out is what's more troublesome and/or surprising: 1. having to set the port explicitly (to #f?) when you want to change the scheme and its port 2. having to set the port explicitly back to its original value if you want to change scheme but not its port I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to realize he/she has to change the port if he/she changes the port (as in 1.). That requires an understanding of the relationship between scheme and port by the user. I do, however, think it's more unreasonable to expect the user to realize he/she has to change the port back to its original value if he wants to change the scheme but not the port. In this case, you need to understand the internals of uri-common. (You need to understand the scheme-port relationship as well to make sense of the API). I also think it's unfortunate that you cannot simply look at the keywords in update-uri and know exactly which fields are modified by quick glance. Thanks for considering the change :) my vote's on 1. K. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Andy Bennett andy...@ashurst.eu.orgwrote: On Friday, 16 May 2014 14:28:51 BST, Andy Bennett wrote: Hi, If anyone on this mailinglist has strong opinions either way, please let yourselves be heard: now's the time to speak up. The existing behaviour seems reasonable as it only does it when setting scheme, not when setting other parts of the URI: - #;3 (update-uri (uri-reference http://localhost:8080/;) scheme: 'https) #URI-common: scheme=https port=#f host=localhost path=(/ ) query=() fragment=#f #;4 (update-uri (uri-reference http://localhost:8080/;) fragment: test) #URI-common: scheme=http port=8080 host=localhost path=(/ ) query=() fragment=test - Regards, @ndy -- andy...@ashurst.eu.org http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ 0x7EBA75FF ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Hi, If anyone on this mailinglist has strong opinions either way, please let yourselves be heard: now's the time to speak up. If there was a vote then I'd vote to preserve an explicit port setting but dynamically choose the correct one, based on scheme, when port is #f. I don't think we (Knodium) rely on the current behaviour. We do use the domain canonicalisation examples: http://api.call-cc.org/doc/spiffy#sec:Redirecting_to_another_domain The latter one is reasonably robust in the face of both the current behaviour and KLM's proposed behaviour. The former one is not. Regards, @ndy -- andy...@ashurst.eu.org http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ 0x7EBA75FF ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Friday, 16 May 2014 14:28:51 BST, Andy Bennett wrote: Hi, If anyone on this mailinglist has strong opinions either way, please let yourselves be heard: now's the time to speak up. The existing behaviour seems reasonable as it only does it when setting scheme, not when setting other parts of the URI: - #;3 (update-uri (uri-reference http://localhost:8080/;) scheme: 'https) #URI-common: scheme=https port=#f host=localhost path=(/ ) query=() fragment=#f #;4 (update-uri (uri-reference http://localhost:8080/;) fragment: test) #URI-common: scheme=http port=8080 host=localhost path=(/ ) query=() fragment=test - Regards, @ndy -- andy...@ashurst.eu.org http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ 0x7EBA75FF ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Hi guys, I have come across som a bug or unintuitive behaviour in uri-common. The port parameter is reset on update-uri. uri-generic works like expected: csi -R uri-generic #;1 (update-uri (make-uri port: 100) scheme: 'http) #(URI scheme=http authority=#(URIAuth host=#f port=100) path=() query=#f fragment=#f) however, uri-common sets the port back to #f: csi -R uri-common #;1 (update-uri (make-uri port: 100) scheme: 'http) #URI-common: scheme=http port=#f host=#f path=#f query=#f fragment=#f I'm expecting to see port: 100 in the updated uri. A fairly simple workaround is, of course, adding port: (uri-port original-uri) but I thought I'd point this out. Thanks, K. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:38:16PM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: Hi guys, I have come across som a bug or unintuitive behaviour in uri-common. The port parameter is reset on update-uri. uri-generic works like expected: csi -R uri-generic #;1 (update-uri (make-uri port: 100) scheme: 'http) #(URI scheme=http authority=#(URIAuth host=#f port=100) path=() query=#f fragment=#f) however, uri-common sets the port back to #f: csi -R uri-common #;1 (update-uri (make-uri port: 100) scheme: 'http) #URI-common: scheme=http port=#f host=#f path=#f query=#f fragment=#f I'm expecting to see port: 100 in the updated uri. A fairly simple workaround is, of course, adding port: (uri-port original-uri) but I thought I'd point this out. I don't remember exactly, but I think this is intended behaviour. This allows you to switch from http to https without also having to update the port to something else. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Hmmm ... The scheme is changed, like you say, but the port is too, from 100 to #f, which is what I find surprising. I cannot seem to find a way to update the uri without loosing the port. What am doing wrong here? K. On May 13, 2014 1:48 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:38:16PM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: Hi guys, I have come across som a bug or unintuitive behaviour in uri-common. The port parameter is reset on update-uri. uri-generic works like expected: csi -R uri-generic #;1 (update-uri (make-uri port: 100) scheme: 'http) #(URI scheme=http authority=#(URIAuth host=#f port=100) path=() query=#f fragment=#f) however, uri-common sets the port back to #f: csi -R uri-common #;1 (update-uri (make-uri port: 100) scheme: 'http) #URI-common: scheme=http port=#f host=#f path=#f query=#f fragment=#f I'm expecting to see port: 100 in the updated uri. A fairly simple workaround is, of course, adding port: (uri-port original-uri) but I thought I'd point this out. I don't remember exactly, but I think this is intended behaviour. This allows you to switch from http to https without also having to update the port to something else. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:25:23PM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: Hmmm ... The scheme is changed, like you say, but the port is too, from 100 to #f, which is what I find surprising. I cannot seem to find a way to update the uri without loosing the port. What am doing wrong here? Try updating it simultaneously. This should work: (update-uri foo scheme: 'http port: 100) The idea is that you'd rarely want to switch to an entirely different protocol on the same port anyway, so the sane thing to do is reset it to the default. If this doesn't work either, it would be a bug. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
A, of course, now I understand what you were trying to tell me previously. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, Peter. In my particular use-case, I am changing to a custom scheme and this port clear on scheme change feature made me scratch my head for a while (but that happens quite often, so is no indicator if whether the api is intuitive or not!). So if we were to vote, it'd put my two cents on not modifying the port unless explicitly stated (if it's already #f it's still work like you'd expect). K. On May 13, 2014 11:28 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:25:23PM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: Hmmm ... The scheme is changed, like you say, but the port is too, from 100 to #f, which is what I find surprising. I cannot seem to find a way to update the uri without loosing the port. What am doing wrong here? Try updating it simultaneously. This should work: (update-uri foo scheme: 'http port: 100) The idea is that you'd rarely want to switch to an entirely different protocol on the same port anyway, so the sane thing to do is reset it to the default. If this doesn't work either, it would be a bug. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:37:53PM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: A, of course, now I understand what you were trying to tell me previously. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, Peter. Glad my ramblings were helpful! In my particular use-case, I am changing to a custom scheme and this port clear on scheme change feature made me scratch my head for a while (but that happens quite often, so is no indicator if whether the api is intuitive or not!). So if we were to vote, it'd put my two cents on not modifying the port unless explicitly stated (if it's already #f it's still work like you'd expect). You're probably right, it's an example of more magic (the bad kind!). But this is a breaking change, so I'll have to think about it for a bit. If anyone on this mailinglist has strong opinions either way, please let yourselves be heard: now's the time to speak up. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common
Peter Bex scripsit: If anyone on this mailinglist has strong opinions either way, please let yourselves be heard: now's the time to speak up. I think the existing behavior is correct, because scheme and port are tied together. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan co...@ccil.org free-range chickens (except they have http://www.ccil.org/~cowan teeth, arms instead of wings, and dinosaurlike tails).--Elyse Grasso ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
