Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] URI status

[Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...>]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 16:13, Dean Michael Berris
<mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 15:51, Dean Michael Berris
>> <mik...@gm...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because currently the HTTP URI parses the string at construction time
>>> (and URI's are immutable anyway), validity checks are as simple as
>>> returning a boolean. So parse once, validity and data are available
>>> right away once the object is constructed.
>>
>> This is indeed very nice, and should be kept this way, in what I'm
>> proposing -with the exception of relative URI's, see below- will be
>> kept that way, mere the place where most of the parsing is done will
>> change.
>>
>
> Alright. Let's just make sure that it does make sense and doesn't back
> us into a corner. It's easy to change later on if we find that leaving
> all the parsing into one parse function is too limiting (or too hard
> to specialize).
>
>>>
>>> If you are going to allow relative URI's, will that be valid for SMTP
>>> too? What would be the host?
>>>
>>
>> You're right, adding relative URI support will increase the complexity
>> of the library more than I initially thought. I'm going to leave it
>> out, at least for now. Implementing it later shouldn't be a problem if
>> for any reason we choose to do so.
>>
>
> If there is a good reason for us to support it then I don't have any
> objection to it. Right now though I don't see it yet so I'm
> apprehensive still. :)
>
>>
>> Thank you for your thoughts, you might just have prevented me from
>> overcomplicating things :)
>>
>
> You're welcome. :)
>
> --
> Dean Michael Berris
> cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris
> linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com
>

Unfortunately it's been a while since you've heard from me but I've
just committed a rewrite which turns the parser into a grammar.
Michael Caisse brought this up, and it allows other people to reuse
the Spirit URI rule inside their own parsers. Unfortunately the
transition wasn't as easy as I initially anticipated, but Hartmut
Kaiser has been a great help, thanks for answering all those
questions!

As a bonus I've included IPv4 support, and hope to add some smaller
changes such as exposing the boost::optionals soon. I've had a shot at
IPv6 support, but it's an enormous rule thus it'll require some
optimisation.

Yours,
Jeroen Habraken

P.S. Dean, could you please have a look at the current derived HTTP
implementation, I'd really like to hear your opinion.