Ok, that's good to hear. That brings up two points though:
1. should we leave my cxml-stp/xpath stuff in there are rewrite the xml bits to look more like the cxml code used elsewhere in cl-webdav? Obviously, I vote for leaving it as is, but that's mostly because I don't want to be bothered to rewrite this using straight cxml.
2. there may be other extensions to cl-webdav that don't belong in cl- webdav itself and the experience of trying to add locks may inform the API decisions regarding extensibility of cl-webdav. I'll answer the rest of this in the next message...
cyrus
On Jun 29, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:13:19 -0700, Cyrus Harmon <ch-tbnl@bobobeach.com
wrote:
It seems like it would be pretty straightforward to move the cl-webdav-level-2 stuff into it's own asdf system.
FWIW, I personally think that the level 2 support is a valid addition and should eventually be part of cl-webdav itself. _______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel