[drakma-devel] Re: Portability of Drakma

[Edi Weitz]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:07:01 +0100, "Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'd prefer (3) because it means we don't have to change Drakma and
>> I won't have to do any work (for which I don't have time right
>> now).
>
> I figured so much, so I've been working to make the API support (3).
> It looks like I'll be able to make it so.
>
>> But I can live with (1), if you provide a clean patch for that -
>> including all the necessary updates to docstrings and the HTML
>> documentation...
>
> I'll regard (3) as a minimal version. I can submit a patch for (1)
> which will ofcourse change the docs and docstrings. For now, I'll
> focus on (3) though.

OK, fine with me.

>> What is the additional usocket functionality we'd lose if we opt
>> for (3)?
>
> It won't be possible to support any other function than
> reading/writing content on the socket. Other functionality includes
> retrieving the local or remote socket 'names' (ip+port). I hope to
> support read/write timeout settings in the future too. That
> functionality won't be available (outside of http-request;
> internally, it could bind the usocket, ofcourse).
>
> I hope that answers your question.

Yes, thanks.  It looks like (1) should be the medium-term goal,
especially as (user-defined) timeouts are currently only available for
LispWorks.

Thanks,
Edi.