Re: [Chicken-users] proposed change to http-client

[Graham Fawcett]

On Feb 13, 2008 12:17 PM, Elf <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Right. It takes a lot more work to write a correct HTTP 1.1 client;
> > there are many new issues that are considered "MUSTs" in RFC-speak:
> > 307 redirects, transfer encoding, etc.
>
> hm, this is offtopic of course, but methinks it would be easier to do many
> of the requirements in scheme than in other languages.... transfer
> encodings are just procedure dispatch + composition, for exmaple.

I agree, if we were writing a comprehensive library from scratch. If
that's the case (e.g. if libcurl license or API sucks, or if it isn't
supported on some key platform), then sure, I'd write my 1.1 library
in Scheme too.

Don't misunderstand, I think there's a perfect case for a quick and
dirty HTTP client, as an 80% solution. I just wouldn't reinvent the
tricky 20% when a 99% solution already exists.

> i have to be honest, though, i have no clue what a 307 is, ive never
> encountered one and dont remember it from the rfcs at all (and it should be
> abundantly clear from earlier conversation today that my memory of them is
> flaky at best).

When you've forgotten more than you remember, you know you have arrived. ;-)

The take-home point, I think, is that implementing a protocol client
properly can be a lot of work, and it's wise to let someone else sweat
and enjoy their API.

Graham