[erlang-questions] [99s-extend] [ANN] Cowboy 1.0

Loïc Hoguin <>
Tue Aug 5 23:06:19 CEST 2014


If you were already at the previous version (0.10) then that plus a 400 
instead of 500 when header parsing fails are pretty much the only changes.

There's some more if you were at 0.9, mostly the body reading interface 
changed to prevent annoying timeout issues.

On 08/05/2014 11:01 PM, Paulo F. Oliveira wrote:
> Yes, it should be _that_ easy for the 400 > 422 :D, but is that the only
> important difference I should be aware of, then? I haven't written any
> real tests, for the time being, to guarantee backward compatibility for
> dependants...
>
> In any case, I'm thinking about updating the dependencies in the future
> (I own one of them and the other one is an internal project, for the
> time being).
>
> Thanks for the tip.
>
> Cheers.
>
> - Paulo F. Oliveira
>
>
> On 5 August 2014 21:55, Loïc Hoguin <
> <mailto:>> wrote:
>
>     You can easily send 422 and return halt instead of returning false
>     if you need to keep that, it'll just be 2 lines instead of 1. :)
>
>     On 08/05/2014 10:33 PM, Paulo F. Oliveira wrote:
>
>         Hi, Federico.
>
>         Check this out for the "why" regarding your question:
>         https://github.com/ninenines/__cowboy/issues/715
>         <https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy/issues/715>
>
>         It's one of the reasons (I haven't detected others yet) stopping
>         me from
>         moving to 1.0, unfortunately (I have some projects depending on
>         these
>         status codes already), but as soon as I have some time and look
>         at all
>         the _major_ differences between 0.9.0 and 1.0 I think I'll make the
>         move. For the time being, I have found no issues with the REST
>         part of
>         cowboy (the one I use).
>
>         Thank you, Loïc et all for the effort and for keeping it open
>         source.
>
>         Regards.
>
>         - Paulo F. Oliveira
>
>
>         On 5 August 2014 15:18, Federico Carrone
>         < <mailto:>
>         <mailto:
>         <mailto:>>> wrote:
>
>              Congratulations Loic. I really love cowboy.
>
>              I got only one question: Why did you change the reply with 400
>              instead of 422 in cowboy_rest for unprocessable entities?
>
>              Regards,
>              Federico.
>
>
>
>              On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Max Lapshin
>         < <mailto:>
>              <mailto:
>         <mailto:>>__> wrote:
>
>                  Loic, it is very cool!
>
>                  Thanks.
>
>                  _________________________________________________
>                  erlang-questions mailing list
>          <mailto:>
>         <mailto:
>         <mailto:>>
>         http://erlang.org/mailman/__listinfo/erlang-questions
>         <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>
>
>
>
>              --
>         http://federicocarrone.com/
>
>              _________________________________________________
>              erlang-questions mailing list
>          <mailto:>
>         <mailto:
>         <mailto:>>
>         http://erlang.org/mailman/__listinfo/erlang-questions
>         <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>
>
>
>
>         _________________________________________________
>         Extend mailing list
>          <mailto:>
>         https://lists.ninenines.eu/__listinfo/extend
>         <https://lists.ninenines.eu/listinfo/extend>
>
>
>     --
>     Loïc Hoguin
>     http://ninenines.eu
>
>

-- 
Loïc Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list