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

Petr Rockai me at mornfall.net
Thu Mar 5 22:12:22 UTC 2009


Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> writes:
> Libcurl support is understandable; it's stable and featureful.
Right, although the bindings are somewhat hairy and I'd be happier to see
things we use merged into the hackage curl. But yes, this is basically our
"default" backend and we don't have anything better right now.

> 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)
Apparently 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).
Pipelining, plus it's impossible to make proper static binaries with libcurl,
but it's doable with libwww, without resorting to (slow) haskell HTTP library.

> I'm just hoping we can further this trend of whittling away at our code,
> removing needless choice and variation along the way...
I'm all for that (ie. removing libwww), even though it'll make our life a
little harder elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I'd be for cutting into the wget support as well, so it'd be left
at either HTTP or libcurl. I don't think the wget stuff is particularly useful
(probably less so than libwww).

Just 2 cents.


Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com
 http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net

"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
 indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
     -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation

More information about the darcs-users mailing list