Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Flexible request body parser #434

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tokuhirom
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

- It's 100% compatible with older versions.
- User can add any body parser by himself.
- HTTP::MultiPartParser & URL::Encode is faster than HTTP::Body.
- Remove backward compatible layer for HTTP::Body.
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same when pulling 1fac96a on tokuhirom:flexble-parser-without-http-body into f168ddc on plack:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.78%) when pulling 1fac96a on tokuhirom:flexble-parser-without-http-body into f168ddc on plack:master.

use strict;
use warnings;
use utf8;
use 5.010_001;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do you really need these?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops. My vim snippet injected this. I removed this at 4a80f4e.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.77%) when pulling 4a80f4e on tokuhirom:flexble-parser-without-http-body into f168ddc on plack:master.

@miyagawa
Copy link
Member

I saw http://search.cpan.org/~kazeburo/HTTP-Entity-Parser-0.12/lib/HTTP/Entity/Parser.pm and would love to replace HTTP::Body with a faster implementation like this. Is it still viable to update and merge this? cc @kazeburo

See also: @chansen's URL::Encode::XS, HTTP::MessageParser and HTTP::MultipartParser.

cc @avar

@miyagawa
Copy link
Member

Duh, I completely forgot this PR and re-implemented everything with #537

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants