W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Libwww status

From: Vic Bancroft <bancroft@maioriello.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:22:53 -0500 (EST)
To: <www-lib@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111070750480.3508-100000@pc70.home.maioriello.net>

Warning, post written during first cup of coffee.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Joel Young wrote:

> Some time earlier Fred Covely wrote :

> > I am curious as to the 'strategic' direction of libwww.
> There was a post a while ago from one of the former maintainers 
> that libwww is in "user maintenance".

This situation is quite suitable for an opensource project.

> > Nevertheless it seems to me that a major rewrite is in order.
> Yes.

Humm, who is going to test it under all the currently supported platforms?

> > It might make a lot of sense to do such a rewrite in C++ using STL and
> > integrating with other open source efforts (Xerces comes to mind).

What will happen to "pure c" programs who are using Libwww ?

> > It may make sense to keep a lot of the libwww semantics, while moving
> > everything to C++.

Why not just reconstruct a new library ? Put it in Library/src/cpp 
perhaps.  There are only 117 c source files and 151 headers to translate. 
> Component libraries are a better and more reusable choice.  

It is possible to produce component shared objects with a smaller 
scope and memory footprint by just adding additional targets to the 
Library/src/Makefile.in . . . 

> Libwww could be split into a network library, a mime library, a
> stream library, a parsing library, etc... 

Sort of like,

  lib_LTLIBRARIES =  	libwwwutils.la 	libwwwcore.la 	libwwwtrans.la 	
                        libwwwstream.la libwwwcache.la 	libwwwdir.la 	 
                        libwwwfile.la 	libwwwftp.la 	libwwwgopher.la 
			libwwwmime.la 	libwwwhttp.la 	libwwwnews.la 	
			libwwwtelnet.la libwwwhtml.la 	libwwwapp.la 	
			libwwwinit.la 	libwwwmux.la 	libwwwxml.la 	 	 	

> Where these components are already robust with the appropriate
> licenses the libwww versions should be scrapped.

Ouch, why the vicious attitude ?

> There should be absolutely zero global state requiring library user
> awareness.

Huh, well, I guess so, is this a simple desire for reenentrancy or the 
more ambitious goal of functional programming ???

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 08:44:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:54 UTC