On Feb 3, 2008 9:06 PM, Bill Janssen <janssen(a)parc.com> wrote:
> 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.
Well, it's an RPC protocol, not something specific to HTTP. It might
use HTTP as its transport agent, but that's its only connection. When
I think "XML-RPC", I don't automatically think, "I should look in the
HTTP section of the standard library". I think either XML-RPC or RPC
> Maybe a subpackage, "http.xmlrpc".
Problem with that is Guido said he wants any renaming to make the name
as simple if not simpler. Sticking XML-RPC libraries into http does
not do that. Plus there is a general agreement that these new packages
will only be one level deep.
> 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.
Sure, but what is right? The reason it has taken this long and led to
the creation of a separate mailing list is because everyone's "right"
is different. We are going to end up with a better solution, but there
is not right solution.