From: Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...> - 2010-01-21 19:02:13
|
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 18:39, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 18:17, Dean Michael Berris >> <mik...@gm...> wrote: >>> >>> Are these patches also on your fork? Those would be good to have >>> merged into the 0.5-devel line soon. >> >> No, they aren't, and I was about to ask. It might be easiest here if I >> create a couple of issues and attach the patches there. >> > > Definitely. Added a couple of issues with patches in github, the one that is remaining is the discussion on `and` etcetera. >>> BTW, are your changes ready to merge into 0.5-devel so I can test locally? >> >> Not really, there is still quite a bit of work to be done as I've >> described in the URI thread, and major functionality like the IP >> parsing is missing. As I have exams at the moment it's hard to tell >> when I have time to work on this. The current code in my fork should >> compile and run though, and I'd like your opinion on the way I >> implemented the derived HTTP class in my fork. >> > > Alright, sure let me take a look and let you know soon enough. :) > >> Also, my code breaks some of the current code, it seems mostly from >> the transition from protocol() to scheme(), so those need to be fixed. >> > > Cool, no worries there. Let me know when you've done these changes on > your branch too and once the tests pass we should be good to go for a > merge. > >> >> Sorry, attached the wrong patch, this one will actually fix the >> documentation and tests. >> > > No problem, thanks for these! > > -- > Dean Michael Berris > cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris > linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com > Jeroen |