[Seaside-dev] codecs overhauled (again)

[Lukas Renggli]

> I know this is my agenda item I keep pushing but I do think it will
> help users understand what input and output they should be expecting.
> I can try to find time to do this if you don't want to but I thought
> I'd bring it up again since you were in there anyway.

Yeah, I think that would make it much more clear what actually
happens. Other web application frameworks use the same terminology of
external and internal encoding.

> Also, on another note, do we not want to keep tests that explicitly
> test WAGenericCodec? I see that it's nice to have generic UTF-8 tests
> that just test that there is *some* codec that will do the conversion
> but doesn't it still make sense in the Squeak tests to make sure that
> the generic codec is functioning properly? Right now the tests all use
> "WACodec forEncoding:" which might not even return a WAGenericCodec.

I think we had this discussion already a while ago? If not ...

I dislike the complexity with all these strings naming encodings and
that we enforce the presence of certain codecs. This just makes
porting unnecessary hard. I found the approach with subclasses that
represent the different encoding pairs much more elegant
(object-oriented), the only default being present a null codec.

Lukas

-- 
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch