From: Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
Date: 2003-11-16T00:27:31+09:00
Subject: Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook

In article <AD4480A509455343AEFACCC231BA850F17C354@ukexchange>,
  Elliott Hughes <ehughes@bluearc.com> writes:

> This doesn't seem like a good API. There are just too many
> not-readily-distinguishable parameters. (I'm avoiding mention of type for
> obvious reasons. I don't want to be burned as a heretic.)
>
> Are we not missing an object? If we had an HttpOpener or whatever, it could
> have named methods to let you set the various blocks. 
>
> We could keep the current convenience method, but implement it in terms of
> the new class. Anyone who needs the full configurability uses the class
> directly. So you get both simple interface *and* fully configurability. 

Do you mean that we need some layer between open-uri and net/http?
-- 
Tanaka Akira