On May 15, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hey,
> 
> On 15.05.2014, at 17:41, Chris Cunnington <brasspen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 15, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15 May 2014 13:17, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Hey all
>>>> 
>>>> Re-reading an old blog post
>>>>      https://squeakingalong.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/webclient-and-webserver-for-squeak/
>>>> Can we make the last paragraph happen?
>>> 
>>> (which is, for lazy folk,
>>> 
>>>> As a result, we now have what I think is a pretty decent HTTP server and client implementation for Squeak 4.1 and hopefully we can nuke HTTPSocket sometime soon. WebClient is superior in _every_ respect.
>>> )
>>> 
>>> frank
>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>>      -Tobias
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I just read your blog post twice. I'm sure you're right about it being better, but if you could explain things in more detail that would be good.
>> 
> 
> Attention, the post is not mine. It is an old one by Andreas.

Ah, my mistake. 
> 
>> 1. A quick search in an image of mine says HTTPSocket is used 37 times: SMSqueakMap, SSVersion, FileStream, SocksSocket, MCHttpRepository, InstallerUrl. What happens to them? Do they all break? 
> 
> Well, Andreas introduced that Compat layer 
> as you found out (Q2).
> So they theoretically shouldn't.
Great. 
> 
> (BTW, If SSVersion is from SqueakSource, how would it use HTTPSocket?)
SSVersion>>#registerSqueakMap: 
I imagine it was removed a long time ago from the SqueakSource code base. It looks like it was an idea that was not fully realized. I have no intention in using it for SMServer. 
> 
>> 2. Would this change only work for applications that already use the *WebClient-HTTP-override protocol in HTTPSocket? 
> 
> There shouldn't be any other uses…
> 
>> 3. Would this require the Adaptor pattern to keep older code working? 
> 
> An inverse for WebClient-HTTP so to speak…
> 
>> 4. If I use Kom do I need to migrate somehow? 
> 
> I don't know.
>> 
>> If you could provide more information about how this change would affect things that rely on it, then I'm all for it. 
> 
> • We should be just concerned to migrate the core infrastructure
>  (Monticello, Updates, SqueakMap if you want, Installer if necessary)
> • Move HTTPSocket into its own package
> • Deprecate HTTPSocket in 4.6 or 4.7
> • Remove it in 4.7 or 4.8
> 
> I just jumped for it as I hat to answer questions regarding problems in HTTPSocket
> and I just noticed that it is really due to be replaced, IMHO.

Sounds like a great idea. 

> 
> Best
> 	-Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140515/df80c505/attachment.htm