Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Updated 0.4 integration branch

[John P. F. <jf...@ov...>]

Glyn Matthews wrote:
> 1. boost::network::uri::uri and boost::network::uri::http::uri have a
> redundant namespace.  I understand that the directives maybe shouldn't be in
> boost::network, but a different named namespace might be better so that we
> could have boost::network::uri and boost::network::http::uri.
>   
I think that directives which perform requirements of the uri API should 
be within a boost::network::uri namespace.  If it handles something 
specific to http uri -though not necessarily at exactly 
boost::network::uri::http-  either the associated tag should be within 
::http, or the function or class which handles http specific things 
should be. So in short there is no easy answer, it depends on things 
like cross cutting concerns, and what boost::network::uri means ( I'll 
put what I've discussed here in the design spec for revision).
> 2. I had to do some workarounds with the wrappers and directives to add
> support for std::wstring.
>   
Thanks!
> 3. I need clarification as to why there should be tags to identify different
> protocols.  I understand the need to specialize templates for strings and
> header_containers but I can't see why we have, e.g.
> boost::network::http::message_tags to specialize
> boost::network::http::basic_message as we do now.  this means we have to
> provide traits for struct string<http::message_tags> as well as
> string<tags::default_> which are in fact going to be identical.
>   
> 4. I don't like the name, tags::default_.  I added tags::default_string and
> tags::default_wstring, and, while they're more descriptive, I think they can
> be improved.
> 5. Internally, we sometimes use namespace impl and sometimes namespace
> detail.  We should be more consistent and choose one.
> 6. The implementation of http::message and http::message uses std::string
>   
No comment in regards to the rest, as I think Dean is currently in a 
better position to answer.

John