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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Cleanup following #35 #38

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 22, 2017
Merged

Cleanup following #35 #38

merged 7 commits into from
May 22, 2017

Conversation

jameshurst
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

frewsxcv
frewsxcv reviewed May 22, 2017
View reviewed changes
src/channel.rs Outdated
///
/// Channel::from_url(url).unwrap();
/// let channel = input.parse::<Channel>().unwrap();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change should be reverted since this doc is describing the from_url method

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, I'll fix that one up.

@frewsxcv
Copy link
Member

Minus my comment, this all looks good to me!

Regarding the from_url method on Channel: Personally, if I had to pick between having that functionality available out-of-the-box or available as opt-in feature (like in this PR). I definitely don't feel strongly about it though, there are pros and cons to either option. And if it turns out people really want that functionality enabled in the future by default, we can bring it up again.

@PhnxRbrn Have any thoughts about these changes?

@chrisppy
Copy link
Member

@frewsxcv Any rss reader would use the from_url method, so to me it does not make much sense behind a feature gate

@jameshurst
Copy link
Member Author

@PhnxRbrn My thought is that an rss application may want to use their own networking library or customize the request used to retrieve the rss feed. If a user doesn't want to use this feature then we're including a pretty large dependency (hyper) for no reason.

@chrisppy
Copy link
Member

@jameshurst very true, with that in mind, it does make sense to keep it behind the flag.

@frewsxcv
Copy link
Member

thanks again everyone, going to merge and publish this :)

@frewsxcv frewsxcv merged commit 3f6fd3a into master May 22, 2017
@frewsxcv frewsxcv deleted the cleanup branch May 22, 2017 12:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@frewsxcv frewsxcv frewsxcv left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@jameshurst @frewsxcv @chrisppy