Re: Better name for LWP

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Tim Bunce: "Re: Comments on LWP from a Mac user"
• Previous message: Gisle Aas: "Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)"
• Maybe in reply to: Gisle Aas: "Better name for LWP"
• Next in thread: Tim Bunce: "Re: Better name for LWP"

Please see my more recent comments in the message "Four patches for LWP (and comments)."  It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement.  I'll answer some of your specific questions here....

>What's the problem with LWP::Message?  What should LWP::Response/Request be 
>without the message base class?

I was misreading it when I looked at it Friday; withdrawn with apologies.

>> Combining Tim's message and the LWP:: layout (one possibility):
>> 
>> HTTP::
>> ::Base
>
>This is ::Message, isn't??

Yes, ::Base was Tim's phrasing.  HTTP::Message is probably better.

>> MIME::
>> ::Header
>
>I am afraid LWP::MIMEheader has too little to do with MIME for putting it at 
>this place.  It could go into the HTTP:: name space if we choose to reorganise.

Yes, in my more recent message I said this too.  I suggest HTTP::Headers.

>The Date module should also probably go 
>together with the HTTP::. stuff.

Hmm...okay, I like that better than LWP::, but how about Date::RFC1123?  Too obscure?

>> What do you think?
>
>I am positive to a new organisation if it really makes it easier to share 
>code, but then we have to get it right.  The organisation you propose might 
>make it clearer that the library is based on HTTP style communication, and 
>should have miminal impact on most users of the library (assuming we don't 
>rename LWP to WWW).

Again, it sounds like we are in general agreement.

Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>

• Next message: Tim Bunce: "Re: Comments on LWP from a Mac user"
• Previous message: Gisle Aas: "Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)"
• Maybe in reply to: Gisle Aas: "Better name for LWP"
• Next in thread: Tim Bunce: "Re: Better name for LWP"