Uri class and parser

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:27:40 Jens Mueller wrote:
> Is it okay to have both modules and only state in std.uri's
> documentation that you shouldn't use it anymore (similar to std.xml)?
> This would break no code.

If we were to move it, we'd temporarily leave a near-empty std.uri which 
publicly imported std.net.uri. At some later date, we'd then deprecate it, and 
then later actually remove it. There's a definite cost to leaving such a module 
around long term, because then you code floating around using both std.uri and 
std.net.uri. We might try something like removing it from the documentation 
instead of deprecating it (or at least delay that deprecation for a while), 
but then you'd have code silently using it without its developers knowing that 
they needed to change anything.

It can certainly be done, and there are things that can be done to mitigate 
how quickly code is broken, but if you move it, code _will_ be broken at some 
point, and if you leave what basically amounts to an alias around to it long 
term, there's a definite cost to that as well.

Personally, I wouldn't be against putting std.uri through the deprecation path 
and move it to std.net.uri, but I'm also almost certainly the person who has 
broken the most of Phobos' API in an effort to make it consistent (something 
which Walter has never been happy with). So, I'm not really in a position to 
approve such a change. At this point, I think that something like that pretty 
much has to go through Andrei.

- Jonathan M Davis