Simple HTTP support

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/28/11 3:59 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-02-28 01:30, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Sunday 27 February 2011 08:01:36 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 2/27/11 8:50 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/11 11.47, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>>> I you want to contribute to Phobos do NOT look at the Tango
>>>>> sources. The
>>>>> Phobos developers don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> Okey. That is indeed nice to know. But what is it that they don't like.
>>>> The source code, the design, the API...? It's good to know what not to
>>>> do if something is to be included in phobos :)
>>>>
>>>> /Jonas
>>>
>>> WTF? Jacob, for Pete's sake please stop spreading FUD and fomenting
>>> another interminable discussion. This is not about liking!
>>
>> True. And we _don't_ want another discussion about this. But the point
>> still
>> stands that we'd prefer that anyone looking to work on a submission
>> for Phobos
>> not look at the corresponding Tango API or source code.
>> Misunderstandings and
>> licensing issues are possible, and we don't want to get into that
>> again. It has
>> gotten blown out of proportion in the past, and I think that a large
>> portion of
>> the posters around here don't understand what really happened (hence
>> the FUD - I
>> very much doubt that Jacob is purposely misinterpreting what happened).
>>
>> So, we don't want to get into that again (though unfortunately, it's
>> bound to
>> come up just about any time someone mentions looking at Tango), but it
>> _is_ true
>> that it's just cleaner for those working on Phobos to avoid Tango.
>> That way,
>> misunderstandings (on both sides) can be avoided, and we won't have any
>> potential licensing issues.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> I can't find that post by Andrei, neither in my newsgroup reader
> application or the web interface. Has someone removed that post?

I have removed it shortly after posting because I realized it would have 
(in fact now it has since it's been quoted) added more to the discussion 
it was trying to avoid.

> I don't understand what all the noise is about. I just tried to warn him
> BEFORE he starts looking at the Tango sources. Then starts implementing
> code that could be interpreted as based on the Tango source and hoping
> to contribute that to Phobos.
>
> The Tango developers aren't happy about including Tango source code into
> Phobos. Because of that, Phobos developers don't want you to look at
> Tango code and then contributing similar code to Phobos, correct me if
> I'm wrong.
>
> Actually I don't care if it's the Tango or Phobos developers that don't
> like it.

The noise is about the fact that the initial post makes a gross 
misrepresentation of the situation. It can be interpreted two ways: the 
final "it" means "looking at Tango's sources", or the final "it" means 
"Tango". Either way, it squarely spreads disinformation.


Andrei