<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection" style="font-size: 14px; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;">Hi all,
<div><br /></div>
<div>David here, working with Paulo on Zewo and more. There’s absolutely a lack of process, as Paulo mentioned. We have a very rough road ahead of us, with a ton of extra work, if we need to start writing implementation code at this level. Tests and dummy implementations should be well enough to allow us to gather feedback.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>The way forward, as I see it, is agreeing on the API for HTTP Request/Response/Headers/Method/Status/Version based on a proposal structure and pull requests.<br /></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>I should also mention that I strongly oppose bringing in dependencies from any actor in the Swift community to the work group org at this stage.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>David</div>
</div>
<div name="messageReplySection" style="font-size: 14px; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;"><br />
On 30 May 2017, 12:08 +0200, Chris Bailey via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev@swift.org>, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: thin solid #1abc9c;"><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Hi Paulo:</font><br />
<br />
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">One of the things we're trying to avoid is a waterfall design approach, requiring a fully settled API before any implementation work starts - its much more preferable to have a reasonable starting point, make it work, and then make it better. One of the advantages of this approach is that it widens the funnel of participation out from "API designers" to include users, who can try out the API and provide feedback.</font><br />
<br />
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">The proposal that's been implemented was the result of a number of weeks of debate on the mailing list, and as such gives us that starting point. That doesn't mean that your proposal is ignored - in fact it gives us an excellent list of areas that we can debate incrementally and see what the effect would be via working use cases and performance tests.</font><br />
<br />
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">That then gets us working and collaboration on on a single code base - which is really the primary goal of the workgroup!</font><br />
<br />
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Chris</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">From:        </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Paulo Faria via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev@swift.org></font><br />
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">To:        </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Michael Chiu <hatsuneyuji@icloud.com></font><br />
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Cc:        </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev@swift.org></font><br />
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Date:        </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">27/05/2017 12:06</font><br />
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Subject:        </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [swift-server-dev] Prototype of the discussed HTTP API Spec</font><br />
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Sent by:        </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">swift-server-dev-bounces@swift.org</font><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font size="3">Sorry if I'm being annoying, but I really feel what we lack is process. There's no formal proposal and proposal review. I really think we should move incrementally with well defined scopes and deadlines for every round. We didn't have that so far. Carl and others said that my suggestion is counter productive. I think the opposite, of course, as what I'm proposing is a well defined process where when we settle on a design for a particular set of base APIs then we move on to a higher absctraction. This way we won't be discussing the same things over and over again. I'll repeat, if we can't agree on the base types how can we move on? I'm saying let's first *settle* on Version, Headers, Message, Request and Response. Really *define* the API so then we move on, incrementally, from lower abstraction to higher abstraction. </font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font size="3">On May 27, 2017 07:53, "Paulo Faria" <</font><a href="mailto:paulo@zewo.io"><font size="3" color="blue"><u>paulo@zewo.io</u></font></a><font size="3">> wrote:</font><br />
<font size="3">I'm just proposing we move the code incrementally. The "most consentual" list I sent yesterday isn't radically different from the code Johannes proposed. I really don't want to discuss this over and over, ad infinitum. The most important in the messages I sent before is that we need a well defined process. We don't have it. Just taking the first implementation, with a lot of things that admitedly don't fit the scope, and adding that so we can rework doesn't feel right to me. I'm actually confused about the scope this project is taking. The code there explicitly mentions a WebApp, which is a higher responsibility than HTTP. When we started this project the scope as very clear. Crypto/TLS, Socket, HTTP. A well designed HTTP module shouldn't depend *at all* on the socket implementation. Providing an implementation would be just a matter of injecting a dependency. Moving that code as is to the org really doesn't feel right to me. All I'm saying is that we definitely should start having code on the org. But I say we move first Version, Headers, Message, Request, Response. And again, the "least controversial" I sent yesterday isn't radically strange. It's an evolution of Johaness original proposal, plus Carl's, plus Helge's suggestions, plus my suggestions. The only thing I added that wasn't discussed before is HTTPHeader.Field which does a case insensitive comparison in its equatable implementation, and the Message protocol which holds the properties common to request and response (version and headers). If we can't agree on that, which is the sum of everything that was discussed about these particular types. How can we agree on that full implementation?</font><br />
<br />
<font size="3">On May 27, 2017 05:13, "Michael Chiu" <</font><a href="mailto:hatsuneyuji@icloud.com" target="_blank"><font size="3" color="blue"><u>hatsuneyuji@icloud.com</u></font></a><font size="3">> wrote:</font><br />
<font size="3">Hi Carl<br />
<br />
<br />
>       This email thread isn’t about an API proposal. It’s about a prototype implementation of an API that was already proposed and discussed a month and a half ago.  The prototype isn't a full-featured framework like Vapor or Kitura, but it does actually work and it even has XCTests with decent (>75%) code coverage.<br />
<br />
I see, I was confused by the email contents instead of reading the subject and thought we are finally implementing some code. TBH, I don’t see any reason why this should not move to swift-server on github, It sounds a good start to me.<br />
Thank you guys’ hard work for building it.<br />
<br />
>       Also, please note that I didn’t play any part in proposing this API back in March/April - it’s not “Carl’s proposal.”  I just took the existing API that the group had previously discussed and implemented enough of it so that we could measure the utility and performance of the API as proposed and so that we could have better informed discussions about potential alternatives.<br />
<br />
You’re right. it was Johannes’ proposal, I’m so sorry for that.<br />
<br />
Michael.<br />
<br /></font><tt><font size="2">_______________________________________________<br />
swift-server-dev mailing list<br />
swift-server-dev@swift.org<br /></font></tt><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev"><tt><font size="2">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size="2"><br /></font></tt><br />
<br />
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br />
Unless stated otherwise above:<br />
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.<br />
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU<br /></font> _______________________________________________<br />
swift-server-dev mailing list<br />
swift-server-dev@swift.org<br />
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev<br /></blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>