Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] URI status

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

Hi Jeroen,

I apologize for not being able to respond to the list sooner, I've
been busy between being father, husband, and part-time
consultant+project manager lately. That said I try to keep on top of
emails, and I've only been able to relax a bit now. Hopefully I'll be
able to respond to emails quicker this time.

That said please see below.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Jeroen Habraken <vex...@gm...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Yup, no worries. That merge also included a few fixes in different
places. I actually wasn't supposed to merge with master, but I was
having some trouble merging to 0.6-devel directly, having your code
branched from 0.5-devel. I decided since I've already merged 0.5-devel
to master, I might as well merge your code to master. ;)

> 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.
>

Yup, I overlooked this. Thanks for patching and catching that. We
should have a test for that specific issue! :D

(That said I think I've merged it already into head and 0.6-devel 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

+1

> - Documentation needs to be updated, and an the example should be
> expanded to show the use of scheme() for example

+1

> - Another API change is coming up, which will expose the optional
> parameters as boost::optionals, instead of returning an empty default
> value
>

+1

> 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.
>

That sounds great. Please branch off of 0.6-devel this time so that
further development takes advantage of the new stuff I'll be checking
in sooner than later.

I really should stop being project manager and just get back to
engineer mode both in cpp-netlib and in my consulting gigs. I miss
writing C++!!! :D

> Yours,
> Jeroen Habraken
>

Thanks again for all the work, I think I personally don't have the
patience to deal with the intricacies of being RFC compliant at the
URI layer unlike you and other contributors to the project.

Have a good week ahead and I look forward to another pull request soon! :D

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