[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: new Cohttp interface progress

On 7 Aug 2012, at 00:12, David Sheets <sheets@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A monadic syntax akin to pa_lwt would be appreciated. I am developing
> an application of cohttp and I would find it quite annoying to have to
> switch to explicit binding.

Yeah. There are a few general monad p4 extensions out there, so we can try
one out.  However, if we make IO.M a functor, then we can simply create an
Lwt sub-package that instantiates a complete version of the library that is
fully Lwt-based, and can use the usual syntax extension.

> Is Async's interface fundamentally faster than Lwt's? In their present
> implementation?

Not so much fundamentally faster as different.  There is a monitor-based
error propagation model, and they seem to make less use of lazy iteratee
styles (i.e. Lwt_stream) and more explicit communication (which is easier to
reason about in terms of space usage). They have a *really* nice Error.t
that uses lazy datastructures to efficiently send error notifications around.
OTOH, Lwt has more comprehensive UNIX bindings and is more portable at this

I noticed that you've been adding more HTTP header parsing in your fork
btw.  Is your application in a state where we can merge these branches soon?
I need a REST module on top of this protocol library, which it looks like
you want as well.  Dave, do you need HTTPS for your use of Cohttp?




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.