[erlang-questions] Split Cowboy's acceptor and HTTP code
Fri Apr 6 23:51:27 CEST 2012
These are being worked on independently from any code change. And to be
honest, most code changes these days do not come from me, as I spend
most of my time thinking on how to best fit the remaining work into
Cowboy rather than writing code. Of course I do that not by sitting
there doing nothing, but by working on other things, including user guides.
Cowboy already has a lot of documentation, everything is entirely
explained through edoc (make docs). What it is lacking is user guides
and tutorials to build real applications.
It shouldn't take much longer to have something that can be pushed.
However all the user guides written are post-0.6, meaning after the
split occurs, even if it hasn't happened yet at this time. So the user
guides will be on my github account for a while before we can merge it
into Cowboy proper.
As for the examples, someone has started porting misultin examples here:
https://github.com/robertmeta/cowboy-examples and I'm hoping we can
consolidate our and these examples into one repository later on.
On 04/06/2012 11:08 PM, Andrew Berman wrote:
> 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.
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Thompson<> 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
>>> 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.
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions