ring

2017-06-02T05:59:05.502729Z

IMO, the ring should use namespaced keys, eg. :ring/body, :ring/headers

2017-06-02T14:48:01.896672Z

Itโ€™s something Iโ€™m planning to put forward for Ring 2.0, though the namespaces will be :ring.request/* and :ring.response/*.

2017-06-05T06:13:39.487664Z

๐Ÿ‘ that would be better

2017-06-05T06:41:18.692393Z

I think also, ring should use deferred to support asynchronize, instead of arity of handler

2017-06-05T22:42:51.551138Z

deferred from Manifold?

2017-06-05T22:43:10.554727Z

Manifold is a significant size - itโ€™s larger than Ring itself.

2017-06-05T22:43:22.557337Z

And others might want to use different async systems.

2017-06-05T22:43:46.561895Z

Ring uses the lowest-common-denominator. The simplest async solution that can be translated into any other async system.

2017-06-05T22:44:10.566659Z

If you want to use deferreds instead of the three-arity syntax, then itโ€™s just three lines of middleware away.

2017-06-07T01:38:09.498920Z

actually, I like more async, I use promise-chan support asynchronization in my app internally. ๐Ÿ™‚

2017-06-07T03:00:43.126987Z

Adding promise-chan support is also just a middleware away ๐Ÿ™‚

seancorfield 2017-06-02T06:00:34.514988Z

isaac: The Ring spec predates the recent popularity of namespaced keywords.