Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Let's consider dropping ada_url::url in next major #654

Open
anonrig opened this issue May 13, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Let's consider dropping ada_url::url in next major #654

anonrig opened this issue May 13, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@anonrig
Copy link
Member

anonrig commented May 13, 2024

Url aggregator is the mostly used parser. Let us consider dropping url for the next major and maybe calling it url?

This would simplify codebase a lot and make our jobs easier for can parse, as well as urlpattern?

@anonrig
Copy link
Member Author

anonrig commented May 14, 2024

cc @lemire what do you think?

@anonrig anonrig self-assigned this May 14, 2024
@lemire
Copy link
Member

lemire commented May 14, 2024

@anonrig Hmmm... We should always have some care before introducing a breaking change.

How sure are we that there is no user? If we can be certain that nobody uses it, then I am all for pruning it.

But let us not break people's code without warning !!!

@jasnell
Copy link
Contributor

jasnell commented May 17, 2024

Strongly recommend taking things through a proper deprecation cycle on stuff like this.

@anonrig
Copy link
Member Author

anonrig commented May 17, 2024

Strongly recommend taking things through a proper deprecation cycle on stuff like this.

Which deprecation cycle do you recommend we follow? I think first we need to document that.

@lemire
Copy link
Member

lemire commented May 17, 2024

This goes a bit against my proposal to use the fact that we have two functionally equivalent implementations to improve testing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants