Re: new Cohttp interface progress

[Richard Mortier <Richard.Mortier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6 Aug 2012, at 23:34, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:

> ...
> Anyway, the reason this is relevant to the list is because Dave wanted to use 
> Cohttp, but also because the IO.M technique should be useful for other 
> protocol implementations that need multiple threading backends (Xenstore and 
> DNS perhaps).  It would be good to figure this out before we embed Lwt really 
> deeply.  I'll do some more work on this tomorrow, but ideas welcome...

without having read through everything (it's been post-holiday-email all the 
way today - the joys!)...

it's generally interesting how we choose to build these interfaces but my 
initial thought is -- why do you want to support alternative threading 
libraries?  elegance, or an actual reason? ;p

it does seem generally worthwhile thinking this through though -- eg., i'd also 
like to know where we're up to with defining network/channel etc interfaces of 
suitable generality...

-- 
Cheers,

R.




This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, 
please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy 
or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  
Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily 
reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.