[stdlib-sig] Any feedback on proposed http and xmlrpc packages?
janssen at parc.com
Mon Feb 4 06:06:24 CET 2008
I'm good with the proposed HTTP re-org, but I think the XML-RPC
classes should also go into the "http." package (http.tools or
http.server as appropriate) -- there's nothing magical about XML-RPC.
Maybe a subpackage, "http.xmlrpc".
I also think putting server classes into "http.server", but putting
the client-side code, httplib, into "http.tools", is a bit lopsided.
True, httplib is a mix of client-side and general utility functions,
but still... But that's a minor nit. On the other hand, if we're
going to mess around with the locations, might as well get it right
the first time.
More information about the stdlib-sig