Thanks for passing a fresh pair of eyes over that!
Tim
On 17 October 2015 16:23:15 BST, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>Line 509 reads
>
>@[current-no-proxy-servers]
>
>But I expect you mean
>
>@racket[current-no-proxy-servers]
>
>Because otherwise, you're trying to call the parameter reading
>function fro
Line 509 reads
@[current-no-proxy-servers]
But I expect you mean
@racket[current-no-proxy-servers]
Because otherwise, you're trying to call the parameter reading
function from within the docs.
Jay
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Tim Brown wrote:
> I’m having a truly difficult time documenti
I’m having a truly difficult time documenting this.
I have cloned out my (not quite ready to release any more)
tim-brown/racket repo. Checked out the proxy-servers-from-env branch;
which has the changes in url.rkt:
https://github.com/tim-brown/racket/blob/proxy-servers-from-env/racket/collects/ne
I agree. The Web server does this with parsing the query string and POST data.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I recommend using a promise to avoid referencing/parsing the
> environment variables until the point where they're needed. That way
> people who require `ne
I recommend using a promise to avoid referencing/parsing the
environment variables until the point where they're needed. That way
people who require `net/url` just for URL parsing etc don't pay that
cost.
Sam
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> How concerned should I be about per
How concerned should I be about performing a long and documented list
of parsing proxy variables when net/URL is required?
Remember that, only last week, it was up to the user to set
current-proxy-servers manually. Now I’m already string-splitting and
URL parsing environment variables. I don’t wan
I don't think there is anything wrong with having a long and
documented list of what proxy variables and formats are used. The
PLT_* ones would have priority, of course.
Jay
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> I was (still am, in fact) in two minds about using a standard proxy or
I was (still am, in fact) in two minds about using a standard proxy or
using an “application-specific” prefix. I’ve got to document and test
the new code; while I’m doing that anyone who wants to offer an opinion
is welcome to... I’ll take a poll, look at the results, then make up my
mind.
Tim
On
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 9:21:08 PM UTC+2, William Hatch wrote:
> I would like to see it fall back on HTTP_PROXY if PLT_HTTP_PROXY is not found.
+1
> It is annoying that the cases vary (eg. wget uses http_proxy and https_proxy,
> curl uses http_proxy and HTTPS_PROXY), but maybe we could pr
I would like to see it fall back on HTTP_PROXY if PLT_HTTP_PROXY is not
found. It is annoying that the cases vary (eg. wget uses http_proxy and
https_proxy, curl uses http_proxy and HTTPS_PROXY), but maybe we could
prefer the one in all caps and fall back on lowercase. My last job was
behind a pr
I’ve just created PR:
PLT_HTTP_PROXY and PLT_NO_PROXY honoured #1089
It doesn’t use the standard HTTP_PROXY and NO_PROXY from the environment, since
I want to be able to control the proxies for Racket obviously and separately
from the rest of the environment.
It’s kinda tested, and only documen
11 matches
Mail list logo
