Msgpack Support

[SaulDoesCode]

Initial pr for msgpack support, hang tight a bit, I'll add some more commits just now.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 355

• 0 of 2 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 9 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 30.124%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
binder.go	0	2	0.0%
<!--	Total:	0	2	0.0%	-->

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
router.go	9	47.38%
<!--	Total:	9		-->

Totals
Change from base Build 354:	-0.03%
Covered Lines:	726
Relevant Lines:	2410

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 355

• 0 of 2 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 9 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 30.124%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
binder.go	0	2	0.0%
<!--	Total:	0	2	0.0%	-->

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
router.go	9	47.38%
<!--	Total:	9		-->

Totals
Change from base Build 354:	-0.03%
Covered Lines:	726
Relevant Lines:	2410

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 356

• 0 of 15 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 29.963%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
binder.go	0	2	0.0%
response.go	0	13	0.0%
<!--	Total:	0	15	0.0%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 354:	-0.2%
Covered Lines:	726
Relevant Lines:	2423

---

💛 - Coveralls

[SaulDoesCode]

Ok basic MsgPack support is there.

just a thought I have it as res.WriteMsgpack, do you think it should be res.WriteMsgPack instead?

[aofei]

I prefer the Response#WriteMsgpack().

Msgpack -> MessagePack

Protobuf -> ProtocolBuffers

[SaulDoesCode]

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6888900/mime-type-for-msgpack

We can add support for both, since msgpack is a lesser known format and people will have varying opinions.

[SaulDoesCode]

From StackOverflow

From Wikipedia : According to RFC 6838 (published in January 2013 : http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838), any use of types in the "x." tree is strongly discouraged. Media types with names beginning with "x-" are no longer considered to be members of this tree since January 2013.

Then use directly application/msgpack

However, if the mime-type is still a concern we could add in the following, just to give people the benefit of the doubt:

switch mt {
case "application/json":
    err = json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(v)
case "application/msgpack", "application/x-msgpack":
    err = msgpack.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(v)
case "application/xml":
    err = xml.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(v)
case "application/x-www-form-urlencoded", "multipart/form-data":
    err = b.bindParams(v, r.Params())
default:
    return errors.New("unsupported media type")
}

Not sure how to go about it with responses though

[aofei]

case "application/msgpack", "application/x-msgpack":, I think we should do this.