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

Support rack 2.x #320

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 3, 2017
Merged

Support rack 2.x #320

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 3, 2017

Conversation

blanquer
Copy link
Contributor

@blanquer blanquer commented Mar 2, 2017

  • Loosen the version of rack we require (>=1)
  • Ensure Praxis works for both

note: @thogg4 regarding your PR #319 you had some of the basics in there but it was not properly done. Thank you very much for contributing though! it made it much easier to delve into it. See my comments in the PR.

Signed-off-by: Josep M. Blanquer blanquer@gmail.com

Signed-off-by: Josep M. Blanquer <blanquer@gmail.com>
@@ -87,9 +88,13 @@ def setup_parse

@buf = ""

@params = Rack::Utils::KeySpaceConstrainedParams.new
@params = if rack_2x?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could make this method definition itself conditional based on the logic below. It won't change at runtime, and shaving off the check couldn't hurt

Signed-off-by: Josep M. Blanquer <blanquer@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@careo careo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@blanquer
Copy link
Contributor Author

blanquer commented Mar 2, 2017

@thogg4 does this look good to you as well? since you were the one who initially looked at it?

@blanquer blanquer merged commit f953b14 into praxis:master Mar 3, 2017
@blanquer blanquer deleted the make_rack2_work branch March 3, 2017 03:46
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.bindir = 'bin'
spec.executables << 'praxis'

spec.add_dependency 'rack', '~> 1'
spec.add_dependency 'rack', '>= 1'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does is make sense to make this >= 1 < 3 so that this doesn't break with Rack 3?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't foresee any rack 3 happening (just released version two now...and rack exists since 2007)...plus it is a low-level framework to major numbers are a big deal to release...so I don't think we should worry about it. IMO at least.

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.

3 participants