Re: concerns about adding new url schemes in URI::URL
Graham Barr (bodg@tiuk.ti.com)
Sat, 8 Apr 95 10:26:00 BST
In <9504080042.ab28744@post.demon.co.uk>
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995 23:03:06 +0100
Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@ig.co.uk> writes:
> > From: Andrew Wilcox <awilcox@world.std.com>
> >
> ...
>
> Personally I don't see much need for the auto-loading at all.
>
> I left it in at a time when we were still debating if URL should
> provide transport services. It's now agreed that it should not.
> That just leaves parsing - not a big job.
>
> I'd rather see URI::URL simply 'completed' with code to parse the
> other schemes.
>
> I think the next version of URI::URL should have the auto-loading
> code removed.
>
> To implement a new scheme in an external module all you need to
> is write it as 'package URI::URL::<scheme>;' and load the module
> yourself.
>
> As URI::URL is currently still in my hands (since I've not seen
> Martijn release it) I'll make a few changes that might suit your
> needs. Stay tuned.
Well I think that it should be left in. You don't want to have to change every
application written just because someone has invernted a new scheme.
Auto-loading allows the library and application to be independant of what
schemes are avaliable.
It also allows people to invent schemes which they may want to use
internally and not have to change any existing code
My feeling is that the auto-loading should be left in
Regards,
Graham.
--
.-----------------------------------------------------------.
//// | Graham Barr Email: bodg@tiuk.ti.com | \\\\
| 00 | VLSI Cell Designer or: bodg@ti.com | 00 |
O ^ | MOS Design TI MSG: BODG | ^ O
\ ~/ | Texas Instruments Ltd Phone: +44 (0)1234 22 3419 | \~ /
| ENGLAND Fax: +44 (0)1234 22 3331 |
`-----------------------------------------------------------'