Anil Madhavapeddy
Anil Madhavapeddy
Looks like we need to define the hop-by-hop headers; I'm going with https://www.mnot.net/blog/2011/07/11/what_proxies_must_do. Got an RFC reference for these @dave-tucker ?
Added a failing test case and some code into avsm@ocaml-cohttp@0487c545665c52c4d27745a185fc6806abb21cbc
Thanks @edwintorok! Very useful references.
I'm a little confused by how the latest RFCs expect us to distinguish between hop-by-hop and end-to-end headers. Ideally, the `Cohttp.Header.add` interface will automatically maintain the `Connection` header list, but...
@dave-tucker how about just having `Header.add ?hop_by_hop header key value`? This would look up the builtin list if hop_by_hop is not specified in order to determine the default, and always...
This is exposed in Cohttp_lwt_unix in 0.12.0+ (see e015f79 for an example)
That's a critical bit of useful information :-) The Conduit_mirage API will have similar functionality, but isn't quite complete yet -- it's very close though. Do file bug reports or...
You definitely can't use Lwt_unix there -- the idea is that the Cohttp_\* backend exposes the right type equivalence for conn depending on the backend. In the case of the...
That's a good idea...I'd be very much in favour of using those signatures to "consistency check" the backends. > On 8 Nov 2014, at 22:35, Rudi Grinberg [email protected] wrote: >...
Did the change to Body, but not sure it isn't just bikeshedding -- the Async backend is still different.