[darcs-users] do we still need libwww support?

[Eric Kow]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 14:22:18 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > What are the arguments for keeping libwww support (as opposed to
> > focusing on libcurl and HTTP)?
> 
> Outsourcing the http work to libcurl allows the darcs project to focus on it's
> core compotencies: distributed source control. It seems like a good course
> to outsource with reasources are limited.

Indeed.  Right now, we outsource to one of

- libcurl
- libwww
- HTTP (Haskell)
- wget/curl command line (fallback)

So what I was asking the list is if there was a particular reason to
keep libwww support.

Libcurl support is understandable; it's stable and featureful.

HTTP support is somewhat understandable; it's native Haskell and seems
to be easier for us to use (I'm just saying that because some
functionality like maintainer file checking just seems to depend on the
HTTP package outright, which I guessing is because it was simpler to do
so)

The motivation behind libwww support is less clear.  I suspect it may
have been something to do with pipelining (which I understand libcurl
supports).

I'm just hoping we can further this trend of whittling away at our code,
removing needless choice and variation along the way...

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090305/95e10d0e/attachment.pgp>