3 ms·

FTA: “In Go 1.22, the existing code will continue to work, or you could instead write this: http.Handle("GET /posts/{id}", handlePost2) ” Ca

FTA: “In Go 1.22, the existing code will continue to work, or you could instead write this: http.Handle("GET /posts/{id}", handlePost2) ” Can anybody explain why they chose such a stringified approach for the API and not http.Handle(Http.GET, "/posts/{id}", handlePost2) or, if they don’t want to restrict the set of http verbs, http.Handle("GET", "/posts/{id}", handlePost2) ? I think either would be a better API.

biomcgary 3y ago
Backwards compatibility promise. They could have introduced new methods instead, but I don't remember the rationale for avoiding that route.
randomdata 3y ago
Ignoring the go1 guarantee, what advantage do you see with your suggested API?
- Someone 3y ago
  It requires less string processing, (for the first option) removes the possibility to mistype a verb, allows for (slightly) better autocomplete, and better reflects how I describe the http protocol. You do “a GET request on an URI”, not a “GET URI”. I still think it would not be good, though. For me ‘Handle’ sounds like an instruction to do something, but it only adds/registers a handler. Also, why require multiple calls to, essentially, pass a set of (pattern, handler) pairs? I think I would have chosen to make a single call “here are the patterns to register and their handlers”. Most tools would have to make only one such call. It possibly also could be more efficient because the API wouldn’t have to have intermediate states where it can handle one type of request, than 2, 3, etc.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > It requires less string processing Why keep {id}, then? Why not remove the string processing entirely? You may mistype it. You lose better autocomplete. Seems like there is room for significant improvement, not just a minor change. To which there is still an opportunity to introduce a another API, so it's worth finding it.

biomcgary 3y ago

Backwards compatibility promise. They could have introduced new methods instead, but I don't remember the rationale for avoiding that route.

randomdata 3y ago

Ignoring the go1 guarantee, what advantage do you see with your suggested API?

Someone 3y ago
It requires less string processing, (for the first option) removes the possibility to mistype a verb, allows for (slightly) better autocomplete, and better reflects how I describe the http protocol. You do “a GET request on an URI”, not a “GET URI”. I still think it would not be good, though. For me ‘Handle’ sounds like an instruction to do something, but it only adds/registers a handler. Also, why require multiple calls to, essentially, pass a set of (pattern, handler) pairs? I think I would have chosen to make a single call “here are the patterns to register and their handlers”. Most tools would have to make only one such call. It possibly also could be more efficient because the API wouldn’t have to have intermediate states where it can handle one type of request, than 2, 3, etc.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > It requires less string processing Why keep {id}, then? Why not remove the string processing entirely? You may mistype it. You lose better autocomplete. Seems like there is room for significant improvement, not just a minor change. To which there is still an opportunity to introduce a another API, so it's worth finding it.