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

Tracking issue for libz blitz evaluation of reqwest #120

Open
dtolnay opened this Issue May 31, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

6 participants

@seanmonstar seanmonstar modified the milestone: 1.0 May 31, 2017

@theduke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theduke

theduke May 31, 2017

Contributor

I don't know if this was discussed in the meeting,
but what are your thoughts regarding hyper async and stabilizing request?

Should 1.0 wait for a stable release of hyper async?

Or should there already be a SyncClient with a backwards compatible API once hyper async arrives?

Contributor

theduke commented May 31, 2017

I don't know if this was discussed in the meeting,
but what are your thoughts regarding hyper async and stabilizing request?

Should 1.0 wait for a stable release of hyper async?

Or should there already be a SyncClient with a backwards compatible API once hyper async arrives?

@seanmonstar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@seanmonstar

seanmonstar May 31, 2017

Owner

It was mentioned that since an async client will need to expose Future, and the futures crate won't stabilize before reqwest, then reqwest 1.0 will just have a sync client, and and reqwest_async will live seperately as an unstable thing. When it can stabilize, it could be merged into reqwest and released as v2.0.

Owner

seanmonstar commented May 31, 2017

It was mentioned that since an async client will need to expose Future, and the futures crate won't stabilize before reqwest, then reqwest 1.0 will just have a sync client, and and reqwest_async will live seperately as an unstable thing. When it can stabilize, it could be merged into reqwest and released as v2.0.

@seanmonstar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@seanmonstar

seanmonstar May 31, 2017

Owner

That said, to reduce breakage of reqest v1 -> v2, the Client naming issue is relevant here.

Owner

seanmonstar commented May 31, 2017

That said, to reduce breakage of reqest v1 -> v2, the Client naming issue is relevant here.

@little-dude

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@little-dude

little-dude May 31, 2017

Contributor

Lots of these issues are doc or examples. I'm thinking about writing examples using https://httpbin.org. Would that be good, or did you have other ideas in mind?

Contributor

little-dude commented May 31, 2017

Lots of these issues are doc or examples. I'm thinking about writing examples using https://httpbin.org. Would that be good, or did you have other ideas in mind?

@seanmonstar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@seanmonstar

seanmonstar Jun 1, 2017

Owner

It's fine for the example to refer to httpbin, just because the example isn't in a fn main() {}, so we don't have the doctests actually making requests.

Owner

seanmonstar commented Jun 1, 2017

It's fine for the example to refer to httpbin, just because the example isn't in a fn main() {}, so we don't have the doctests actually making requests.

@budziq

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@budziq

budziq Jun 4, 2017

Contributor

Hi large part of docs (including part of landing page) are missing links when referencing symbols. Should these be corrected (assuming yes from log crate evaluation)?

Contributor

budziq commented Jun 4, 2017

Hi large part of docs (including part of landing page) are missing links when referencing symbols. Should these be corrected (assuming yes from log crate evaluation)?

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brson

brson Jun 15, 2017

#1196 was superceded by the existing hyperium/hyper#894 issue, which still needs to be fixed before reqwest 1.0

brson commented Jun 15, 2017

#1196 was superceded by the existing hyperium/hyper#894 issue, which still needs to be fixed before reqwest 1.0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment