Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Comments about the HTTP client interface

[Dean M. C. B. <dmb...@fr...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpp...@li... 
> [mailto:cpp...@li...] On 
> Behalf Of Kim Gräsman
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:03 PM
> To: C++ Networking Library Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Comments about the HTTP 
> client interface
> 
> Hi Glyn,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 13:54, Glyn Matthews 
> <gly...@gm...> wrote:
> >
> > 2008/8/28 Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...>
> >>
> >> How about user_agent?
> >
> > Yes, this might be better.  "User-Agent" still needs to 
> form part of the
> > HTTP request.  Dean?
> 
> Thinking further about this, the feeling that *I am the client* is
> just as true for *I am the user-agent*, so I don't think it adds any
> value in that regard. It's just a different word. I think I like
> "client" better.
> 

I like 'client' better as well at the moment. 'user_agent' is a little clunkier, harder to remember, and harder to explain outside of HTTP.

Consider for example when we'd like to implement someday an SMTP client, or for instance an FTP client, do we say 'user_agent' for those as well? Somehow 'client' maps better to non-p2p protocols where clearly, from a client-side perspective, you'd be more explicit about using a client or hosting a server. ;-)

At any rate, a typedef of http::client as http::user_agent works as well. :-P

--
Dean Michael Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.