Open NCrashed opened 4 years ago
I have split package to api
and backend part. https://github.com/hexresearch/servant-multipart/commit/92b6cb3458d51642e448862756d70d6df760e5b6
Hi, i could use this, too. Would you mind opening a pull request in this repo in order to upstream it?
@maksbotan @arianvp any way to get this in? i would also port the pull request to this repo if necessary.
Indeed, if for some weird reason you guys use servant-multipart
with GHCJS (why tho?), it should be splitted into servant-multipart-api
, servant-multipart-client
and servant-multipart
(containing server code).
I would appreciate a draft PR that I can improve on. Basically, please make the current package a subdir of the repo and add two more packages, like servant
itself does it.
Indeed, if for some weird reason you guys use
servant-multipart
with GHCJS (why tho?), it should be splitted intoservant-multipart-api
,servant-multipart-client
andservant-multipart
(containing server code).
Does anything speak against doing that (i am eager to learn)? I look at this from a perspective where i have an API which simply contains file uploads and need to generate client code for it.
I would appreciate a draft PR that I can improve on. Basically, please make the current package a subdir of the repo and add two more packages, like
servant
itself does it.
Makes sense.
Just a quick heads-up here,
There was some discussion about merging most sub-projects, including servant-multipart
, into the main servant repository (see: https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/1404 ). The main reason is that the cookbooks induce a dependency loop between the various projects, and updates introduce frequent breakages.
Maybe is this a good opportunity to do so for this project ? CI is already setup for GHCJS there.
For the record, I am :+1: for the split.
If you try to compile the package with GHCJS (for instance, for generation of frontend from servant API), you will get: