4 ms·
Would it not be better to call it http-types/http-base/http-common as this just provides common types and not the transport or security? Thanks and keep up the
by the_common_man 9y ago
Would it not be better to call it http-types/http-base/http-common as this just provides common types and not the transport or security? Thanks and keep up the awesome work.
- JoshTriplett 9y agoI think "http" actually makes sense here, for two reasons. First, this crate provides a common layer for the HTTP protocol; if you're interacting with HTTP, you'd use this crate and its types, often directly. Note, in particular, that this crate provides builders to construct HTTP requests and responses, which is often a large part of client and server libraries, respectively. And second, I don't think any specific HTTP client or server software should claim the crate name "http". A common layer like this, built around the protocol itself, seems to have a much more reasonable claim to it.
- tadfisher 9y agoIn addition, the "transport" and "security" portions are the least-HTTP-related parts of an HTTP stack. Far more than HTTP runs on TCP and TLS.
- gregwebs 9y agoIn haskell it is called http-types