search

JuliaWeb / HttpParser.jl

Deprecated! Julia wrapper for joyent/http-parser
MIT License
13 stars 37 forks source link

use different name for a build-in dependency library in build script #47

Closed wildart closed 7 years ago

wildart commented 8 years ago

Use different name for a build-in dependency library in the build script to avoid hooking to system library [#46].

P.S. Ahh, fine BinDeps hacking.

tmlbl commented 8 years ago

I am running into this issue. Bump to have this merged and tagged @malmaud @tkelman

tkelman commented 8 years ago

cannot be tagged until https://github.com/JuliaWeb/HttpParser.jl/pull/36#issuecomment-195600956 is dealt with, otherwise the package will break on windows. merging this seems harmless I guess

wildart commented 8 years ago

@tkelman Who maintains windows http-parser binary?

tkelman commented 8 years ago

@IainNZ and @ihnorton worked on them I think, ref https://github.com/JuliaWeb/HttpParser.jl/pull/17 and https://github.com/JuliaWeb/HttpParser.jl/pull/18. Before my time. I think the answer today is "no one."

aviks commented 7 years ago

@tkelman what do we do about this one?

tkelman commented 7 years ago

We should take the pure-Julia reimplementation from HTTP.jl and move it here to get rid of the binary dependency, but restore the modularity for people who only need parsing but not server functionality.

aviks commented 7 years ago

That is the long term plan, but this package still needs supporting in the meanwhile.

tkelman commented 7 years ago

I don't really agree with that. The name and modularity are worth keeping, but not the C wrapper.

aviks commented 7 years ago

That's neither here nor there. There is a long list of packages that depending on this, via Requests and HTTPServer. No one is going to have the time to redo and test the entire ecosystem in the next couple of months. Jacob has said he plans to do this at some eventually, but I doubt that will happen immediately.

If you have any constructive comments about this particular PR, please do say. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is... leave things as unmaintained as they currently are?

tkelman commented 7 years ago

If this PR was fixing a widespread issue it would have seen comments on this or the issue or discourse over the last year. The library was upgraded last year, so I doubt this is fixing an issue that still happens. If there's something reproducible that needs fixing, sure do so. I see no evidence of that right now.

aviks commented 7 years ago

Great, thanks, that's helpful. I'll tentatively close this then.