[Cuis] Was a consensus reached re: HTTP/HTTPS?

[Phil (list)]

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 10:00 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> WRT optional packages in the main Cuis repo, I don't think it is my 
> decision. I think that what is needed is consensus between people who 
> know and care about the options, pros and cons, etc. All I ask is that 
> no code in the main Cuis repo is abandoned. I mean, the moment we know 
> that something is badly broken, and nobody will work on fixing it in 
> some reasonable time, that's the time to remove that code.
> 
> In particular, wrt HTTP/HTTPS, I don't have much knowledge about the 
> options, and I'm not using any of them. So, I prefer you guys to make 
> the decision.
> 
> So, the proposal is to integrate into the mail Cuis repo, the packages at:
> - https://github.com/davidgraham/Cuis-WebClient
> - https://github.com/davidgraham/Cuis-UUID
> - https://github.com/davidgraham/Cuis-DigitalSignatures
> 
> Please tell:
> - Do you think this is the best option?
> - Or you think it is not? (why? which would be better?)
> - Or (like me) you don't really know, and you prefer those who know 
> better decide?
> 

This seems like the only viable option at this time to me... I'm in the
process of migrating my HTTP code over to it.  As Germán mentioned,
performing and maintaining a port of Pharo code (i.e. Zinc) would be
challenging and not something I'd want to take on.

> Let's give naysayers a chance to speak, and if we agree, I'll merge them.
> 

I'm all for hearing any arguments against if anyone thinks there's a
better solution...

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
> 
> On 3/9/2015 4:04 PM, David Graham wrote:
> > I’d be honored to see the WebClient port included in the core Packages and I’m fine with any decision Juan makes.  I really like the Cuis philosophy, so most of the porting involved rewriting code to conform to what is available in Cuis.
> >
> > Just a couple notes:
> > 1. The Cuis-DigitalSignatures and Cuis-UUID packages in my repo should be imported as well.  These invoke VM primitives and should remain independent.
> > 2. I've used the the WebClient code on my own, without trouble, but the unit tests are very broken and I haven’t had enough spare time to fix these.
> >
> > Also, the Cuis-SecureSocket package in my repo is a port of the SqueakSSL code.  This code works, but needs a lot of attention.  I had a trivial Cuis update app that monitored and could install CoreUpdates directly from github, but github switched to using TLS SNI and the SNI update hasn’t made  its way into the Squeak VM plugin yet:
> > http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7824
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 9, 2015, at 1:19 PM, H. Hirzel<hannes.hirzel at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Final word from Juan?
> >>
> >> On 3/9/15, Phil (list)<pbpublist at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:44 +0000, H. Hirzel wrote:
> >>>> +1 for having a web package in
> >>>> https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev/tree/master/Packages
> >>>>
> >>>> Has a consensus ben reached?
> >>>>
> >>> It seems a defacto consensus has been reached: the original conversation
> >>> occurred about 3 years ago and the only option that appears to exist as
> >>> of today is WebClient.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Cuis mailing list
> >>> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> >>> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Cuis mailing list
> >> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> >> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > Cuis at jvuletich.org
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org