Is it missing anything that the current implimentation has?  Philippe, what 
do you think of this?  Does it fix all the things you see wrong with the 
current implimentation?

And if you are already using it, then what is left to do on it?  Just get a 
more comprehensive test suite?

>From: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard at mac.com>
>To: Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com>
>CC: The general-purpose Squeak developers list 
><squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>,        J J 
><azreal1977 at hotmail.com>, io at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Subject: Re: [Io] RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication 
>methods?)
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:58:51 -0700
>
>Yep, that's pretty much how I see it.  Whoever can get to the work  and 
>finish it wins.
>
>I have actually started integrating the SWHttpClient, implementing  all 
>existing web stuff on top of it, but I have a ways to go and am  short on 
>time now.  I could probably get it done about the first of  the year.
>
>I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of  classes, it 
>is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching, and  has 
>proxy/auth/cookie support.
>
>On Oct 4, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>
>>http://map.squeak.org/packagebyname/HTTPClient
>>
>>I'll let Todd comment on the status since if anyone is looking into  this
>>at the current time, it is him.  His original comment that this  package
>>was the default choice was a mistake since in fact we (the I/O  team) had
>>never gotten so far as to make any such decision.  At the current  time I
>>would say that anyone that cares to take the time to put together a
>>solid test suite for any of the available choices (assuming they don't
>>already have one) and do the work to at least enable the ability to  plug
>>it in to the rest of the Squeak HTTP-using architecture will warrant a
>>high degree of attention and support from the I/O team.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:32 +0000, J J wrote:
>>>So does anyone know the status of this?  What is Steve Waring's http
>>>package?  Is it a true replacement for the HTTP system?  Is it all  pure
>>>squeak?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>JJ
>>>
>>>>From: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard at mac.com>
>>>>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>>>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>>>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>>>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>>>CC: Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com>
>>>>Subject: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
>>>>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:23:29 -0700
>>>>
>>>>I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff  in  
>>>>favor
>>>>of the  Steve Waring's http client package.
>>>>
>>>>Right Ken?
>>>>
>>>>-Todd Blanchard
>>>>
>>>>On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So why a group of guy start to fix it!
>>>>>Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble   improve...No
>>>>>giant step just a tiny and simple one
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise,  because  MC 
>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
>>>>>>>digest
>>>>>>>is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely  reworked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just  awful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Philippe
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Io mailing list
>>Io at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
>