[erlang-questions] [ANN] Cowboy 0.6.0

[John-Paul Bader]

Quick question:

why do you move away from decode_packet and what will you use instead of it?

I saw it is being used in a number of projects and I'm curious what your 
motivation / goal is.

~ John

Loïc Hoguin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Long awaited Cowboy 0.6.0 is finally available.
>
> Cowboy is a small, fast, modular HTTP server and socket acceptor pool.
> The 0.6.0 version is the last to include the socket acceptor pool
> directly in the project. Future versions will simply depend on the ranch
> project which is the socket acceptor pool code split from Cowboy.
>
> Many additions have been made, along with a few bugfixes. The test suite
> has been completely reworked. There is still no user guides. Read more
> here:
> * https://github.com/extend/cowboy/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md
>
> Effort is ongoing to add user guides to both Ranch and Cowboy projects,
> starting with Ranch. Examples will be added to both projects this summer.
> * https://gist.github.com/2397647
> * https://gist.github.com/2600398
>
> Cowboy can be found at https://github.com/extend/cowboy
>
> Next version will switch the acceptor code to Ranch. The dependence on
> the erlang:decode_packet/3 BIF will be removed. Methods and header names
> will be uniformized as binaries, there won't be a mix of atoms and
> binary names anymore. Various changes will be made to REST to improve
> its semantics with regards to full and partial updates. A new API to
> generate dispatch tables easily will be added.
>
> This version includes an experimental and entirely undocumented HTTP
> client in cowboy_client. It uses binaries. We do not recommend using it
> at this point. We hope to add transfer encodings and websocket support
> in the next version and finally document it for 0.8.0.
>
> As always I'm interested in any feedback you may have, good or bad. Feel
> free to drop me a mail about the project!
>
> If you need features added, please open a ticket and describe *what you
> want to do with it*, chances are that you can already do it and you just
> don't know it.
>
> Thanks.
>