Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

Do we need the URI Package?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Marcus Denker-4

Do we need the URI Package?

Hi,

There are three packages concerned with URLs:

-> ZnUrl in Zinc
-> Network-URI
-> Network-Url

URI was a package from Impara that was used extensively in all Impara products and Sophie... back than,
the idea was to integrate Impara infrastructure in Squeak, but that did not happen due to politics...

Network-URI seems to be used nowhere in the system, so I guess we can remove it? Or is anyone using it?

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Do we need the URI Package?

marcus may be we could rescue some of the comments I wrote on URL/URI because I took me energy to do that
and we could paste them in Zinc one.

On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There are three packages concerned with URLs:
>
> -> ZnUrl in Zinc
> -> Network-URI
> -> Network-Url
>
> URI was a package from Impara that was used extensively in all Impara products and Sophie... back than,
> the idea was to integrate Impara infrastructure in Squeak, but that did not happen due to politics...
>
> Network-URI seems to be used nowhere in the system, so I guess we can remove it? Or is anyone using it?
>
> Marcus
>
> --
> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
>
>

Sven Van Caekenberghe

Re: Do we need the URI Package?

In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-4

On 11 Dec 2011, at 11:38, Marcus Denker wrote:

ZnUrl started as a copy of Seaside's WAUrl. From the class comment:

I am ZnUrl, an implementation of an interpreted HTTP(S) URL/URI.
Contrary to other implementations, this one is specific for HTTP(S).

In other words, it might not be general enough, although I think it is better in its domain.
Covering all possible URI/URL types over all kinds of applications is not simple.

Yes, we need to simplify this, but it is a lot of work. Maybe we could have a look at what other libraries do.

Sven

Frank Shearar-3

Re: Do we need the URI Package?

On 11 December 2011 16:51, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 11 Dec 2011, at 11:38, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There are three packages concerned with URLs:
>>
>> -> ZnUrl in Zinc
>> -> Network-URI
>> -> Network-Url
>>
>> URI was a package from Impara that was used extensively in all Impara products and Sophie... back than,
>> the idea was to integrate Impara infrastructure in Squeak, but that did not happen due to politics...
>>
>> Network-URI seems to be used nowhere in the system, so I guess we can remove it? Or is anyone using it?
>
> ZnUrl started as a copy of Seaside's WAUrl. From the class comment:
>
> I am ZnUrl, an implementation of an interpreted HTTP(S) URL/URI.
> Contrary to other implementations, this one is specific for HTTP(S).
>
> In other words, it might not be general enough, although I think it is better in its domain.
> Covering all possible URI/URL types over all kinds of applications is not simple.

Indeed - Squeak's Network-URI supports things like mailto: schemes,
and there's a registration mechanism for arbitrary URIs (like SIP
URIs). I can't imagine that Pharo's Network-URI has diverged very far
from Squeak's?

frank

> Yes, we need to simplify this, but it is a lot of work. Maybe we could have a look at what other libraries do.
>
> Sven

Marcus Denker-4

Re: Do we need the URI Package?

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>
>
> Indeed - Squeak's Network-URI supports things like mailto: schemes,
> and there's a registration mechanism for arbitrary URIs (like SIP
> URIs). I can't imagine that Pharo's Network-URI has diverged very far
> from Squeak's?

No, we did no change anything since I added URI to Squeak 3.8 or 3.9...

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de