[erlang-questions] Split Cowboy's acceptor and HTTP code

[Andrew Berman]

Loic,

I think there are arguments for either approach, but I think way more
important than doing this is to  keep things the way they are and work on
documentation.  It's probably the single most important thing to help
projects become "standard."  I, for one, would really appreciate seeing
more documentation and samples for Cowboy rather than more code changes.

--Andrew

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Thompson <andrew@REDACTED> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 07:43:51PM +0400, Max Lapshin wrote:
> > If someone thinks that splitting single product into many infrastructure
> > packages is "convenient", I want to mention horror with debian packaging
> of
> > erlang: erlang, erlang-base, erlang-tools, erlang-mnesia, etc
> >
> > Nothing but problems and as a result conflicting packages when you try to
> > remove all that stuff and install package from esl.
>
> As a counterpoint, consider how riak is packaged, 25 deps, 19 of which
> we maintain.
>
> In practice, we lock all the dependancies at release time, people
> running HEAD might run into some temporary issues with out of sync deps,
> but its not a common problem we see.
>
> You're also conflating erlang packaging with erlang *library* packaging.
> I agree that erlang is often packaged extremely badly by distributions,
> but if cowboy-acceptor is a version-locked dependancy of cowboy, there
> should be little chance of them getting out of sync.
>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120406/3861538b/attachment.htm>