Re: [MirageOS-devel] Cohttp Design -- LWT, Async, JS, Mirage Compatibility

[Daniel BÃnzli <daniel.buenzli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le samedi, 28 mars 2015 Ã 20:54, Anil Madhavapeddy a Ãcrit :
> - Despite being a heavy user of Daniel's libraries, I don't find them to have 
> the most usable interfaces for quick usage, although they are the best 
> documented and thought through from the libraries I select from (hence the 
> existence of ezxmlm, ezjsonm, and so on as wrapper libraries). A monadic 
> interface is quite intuitive to pick up and use.

I think that the fact they are hard to use has *nothing* to do with 
non-blocking mechanism. Xmlm and Jsonm are hard to use because they expose a 
streaming API for trees (a.k.a. SAX-style) which is a low-level abstraction 
(but has the advantage of not requiring all the input to be in memory which is 
handy when you need for example to process GB of GeoJSON data).  

I don't think that Uutf as a character stream is harder to use than say 
in_channel.  

Best,

Daniel



_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel