Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
May I suggest that you add a bunch of constants instead of using strings. You currently have
// We're doing an HTTP POST ... is.set_option(urdl::http::request_method("POST"));
// ... where the MIME type indicates plain text ... is.set_option(urdl::http::request_content_type("text/plain"));
I don't like the hard-coding of "POST" and "text/plain". Also for type-safety reasons, strings are usually irritating. Maybe it would be possible to use enumeration values instead:
// We're doing an HTTP POST ... is.set_option(urdl::http::request_method::post);
// ... where the MIME type indicates plain text ... is.set_option(urdl::http::request_content_type::text_plain));
Good idea, however rather than an enum I think I will add some static member functions for these "constants", as the set is unbounded and users may still need to supply a custom string. E.g.: is.set_option(urdl::http::request_method::post());
The Url class has operators like ==, != and <. May I suggets you hass hash_value( const url& ) too.
Will do.
I'm not a fan of short names. Especially
http::errc::errc_t
would be clearer IMO as
http::error_codes::error_code
or something like that.
This is chosen for consistency with the c++0x standard library, which has the error constants in std::errc::* (and obviously Boost.System uses boost::system::errc). It seems reasonable to me to use "errc" as an idiomatic name for scoping error constants in any library that uses std::error_code and friends. What do you think? Cheers, Chris