[erlang-questions] Split Cowboy's acceptor and HTTP code
Tue Apr 3 17:36:58 CEST 2012
It does not do your life easier. Three files of 20kbytes are not a problem.
But splitting will make impossible using git bisect and will bring
exponential number of combinations of cowboy and cowboy-www with
exponential number of bugs.
I can promise that in two months after splitting cowboy into two parts will
appear next webserver, which is "fast and convenient to use, not like that
bloated cowboy, which doesn't fit into one package".
I understand an idea to push some good part of cowboy into OTP. But plain
splitting will bring nothing but pain.
There is really no problem in checkouting several http-related files if you
are just using cowboys acceptor.
On Tuesday, April 3, 2012, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> +1 for splitting it out. It will make the life easier for people who
> are using only the acceptor part . Also it's better to do that early I
> > Hello,
> > I have received a lot of feedback on Cowboy recently, especially at the
> > Erlang Factory. The main concern people seem to have today is that many
> > you seem to want to use Cowboy's acceptor code and transport abstraction,
> > but don't want to include the HTTP components.
> > I argued until now that you can always remove the HTTP modules from the
> > release if you want, and that it's easier to work on improving both
> sides at
> > the same time without the dependency, while still keeping in mind that
> > two parts would eventually get split before 1.0.
> > Considering the feedback, I'm wondering if now would be the time to split
> > them.
> > Most people use rebar nowadays, so the dependency should be handled
> > automatically. But I did receive a few comments before from people who
> > the fact that Cowboy was a single package.
> > If the split happens, it will be right after the next version tag, 0.6.0,
> > and will most likely include a renaming of most modules all in a single
> > commit. People who follow master will need to update their code
> > (I'll give a script to do that automatically), while others staying at
> > will have some time to make it happen.
> > If you don't want the split to happen at this point, you should probably
> > reply to this mail so we can all discuss what should happen and when.
> > I hope it won't be too much trouble on everyone, the module renaming
> > should take care of most of it.
> > Thanks for your feedback, as always!
> > --
> > Loïc Hoguin
> > Erlang Cowboy
> > Nine Nines
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions