Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] URI status

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

Hi Dean,

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 09:47, Dean Michael Berris
<mik...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> No worries. I'm looking at it right now and I'm having some trouble
> merging to my local copy. I'll resolve issues locally first then see
> if I can merge your implementation to master, and then pull it from my
> 0.6-devel branch.
>
>> 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!
>>
>
> Cool. They're a great bunch of guys there at the Spirit Mailing list. :)
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Sweet! We can worry about IPv6 later when the world starts catching up
> and implementing it as the default instead of IPv4. :)
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'll let you know if I find any glaring problems.
>
> Have a good day and you'd hopefully hear more from me soon. :)
>
> --
> Dean Michael Berris
> cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris
> linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com
>

I saw you've merged my changes to master, yet I'd have preferred if
you had waited for my pull request. I intended to add the
boost::optional changes to the API first, to catch the breaking in one
go, yet I'm honoured that you considered my code to be master-branch
ready.

Unfortunately with the merge you've reintroduced issue #3, something I
hadn't patched as I was anticipating to merge upstream with my code
before a pull-request. I've now merged upstream with my fork and
issued a pull-request to fix this in the 0.6-devel branch, but it
should be merged with master too.

I'll also try to layout somewhat of roadmap for the URI code as some
of the things I've mentioned before still have to be done:
- A lot more tests need to be added
- Documentation needs to be updated, and an the example should be
expanded to show the use of scheme() for example
- Another API change is coming up, which will expose the optional
parameters as boost::optionals, instead of returning an empty default
value

On the longer term I'd like to get on the way with URI normalisation,
but it still needs some pondering on how this will fit in the current
code. Given the fact that 0.6 is planned for the end of February, my
initial plan would be to finish what I'd hoped to do for 0.5, namely
the three things above.

Yours,
Jeroen Habraken