Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Updates on urllib-dean branch

[Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...>]

Hi John,

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, John P. Feltz <jf...@ov...> wrote:
> I don't see any compelling reason for either git vs svn or sf vs github.
> I only see a time cost that would be better spent on actually improving
> the library. Merging in SVN from what I've seen is fairly trivial, it is
> the design decisions that are hard -and those can be addressed through
> work on the specs and subsequent division between Dean and myself
> (currently).
>

I am not sure where the division is though. What I have stated before
about how to go forward has been clear in both my mind and the code
I've written. The tests are the specification for what features I'm
looking for in a header-only URI library.

The idea is to keep it simple. I like code that looks like the following:

  uri instance = "http://www.boost.org/";
  assert(scheme(instance) == "http");
  http::uri http_instance = instance;
  assert(valid(http_instance));
  assert(host(http_instance) == "www.boost.org");

The HttpURI and URI concepts are now documented with BCCL and enforced
at compile time too.

As far as design goes, I expect any URI to be default constructible,
swappable, and convertible to and from a basic_uri<default>.

Now the parsing implementation boils down to which one adheres to the
RFC more, and which has a more "simple" implementation. Simple is a
matter of taste, but it also means succinct and maintainable.

Do you have any specific questions that I can address in case there
haven't been any formal design documentation in place yet anywhere? I
must apologize for not ever having to write one (and not ever feeling
like I would have to write one just for cpp-netlib ;) ) because I
really don't know how to write a design document.

Let me know how I can close the division from my end.

HTH

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
blog.cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/mikhailberis
linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com