On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:07:01 +0100, "Erik Huelsmann" ehuels@gmail.com wrote:
I'd prefer (3) because it means we don't have to change Drakma and I won't have to do any work (for which I don't have time right now).
I figured so much, so I've been working to make the API support (3). It looks like I'll be able to make it so.
But I can live with (1), if you provide a clean patch for that - including all the necessary updates to docstrings and the HTML documentation...
I'll regard (3) as a minimal version. I can submit a patch for (1) which will ofcourse change the docs and docstrings. For now, I'll focus on (3) though.
OK, fine with me.
What is the additional usocket functionality we'd lose if we opt for (3)?
It won't be possible to support any other function than reading/writing content on the socket. Other functionality includes retrieving the local or remote socket 'names' (ip+port). I hope to support read/write timeout settings in the future too. That functionality won't be available (outside of http-request; internally, it could bind the usocket, ofcourse).
I hope that answers your question.
Yes, thanks. It looks like (1) should be the medium-term goal, especially as (user-defined) timeouts are currently only available for LispWorks.
Thanks, Edi.