I think it's an obvious request, but a character flaw of mine is not doing things unless they can be done really good. In this case, I see a hash table as a "parse" of the headers. It's not obvious to me how to parse them. For example...
- The same header can appear many times, so (Key -> Value) is incorrect, unless you overwrite one. It would be better to have (Key -> (Listof Value)) but that feels really ugly since most of the time there will just be one - The spec doesn't mandate case sensitivity on headers, so I would need to canonicalize "ACCept-ENCodiNG" to something else. Maybe 'Accept-Encoding? - The value of many headers is not really a string. For instance, Content-Length is a number, Cache-Control is an association list, Content-Disposition is complicated, etc. I feel like it is disingenuous to only partial parse. - Dealing with all this may be wasted effort for most requests that just care about the body For these reasons, I think http-client should just return the list of bytes. I think it would be nice to have another function that parses that so clients could optionally call it if it is important. That can be part of http-client. Jay On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:41 AM, adam moore <nerdf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jay, > > Just looking over the new http client code - looking very nice, and > much better than my current slapped together parsing of > get-impure-port. > > I was wondering if it might be better to pass back the headers as > something easier to look up against, for example as a hash table? Or > perhaps, provide an option to do so. I think it's a pretty common use > case to provide for. > > Thanks again, > Adam -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
