Simple HTTP support

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-02-28 14:55, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

>> 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

What I meant by the last sentence was:

The Phobos developer does not like that one look at the Tango source 
code and then contributes similar code to Phobos.

If that is incorrect then please tell so and I'm sorry if I spread any 
disinformation. I guess we should end this discussion.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg