Re: Bloat?

[Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1747 bytes --]

I think Rack::Request and Rack::Response are convenient, but they need 
to undergo a fairly extensive performance audit if they are to remain in 
rack-core.

You might have seen that I did a bunch of performance work on Rails 3, 
and I got a lot of improvement by moving pieces of Rack::Response down 
into ActionDispatch::Response and rewriting them for performance. For 
instance, if people want a HeaderHash, they should probably have to 
specify that. Right now, there's no way to super to 
Rack::Response#initialize and avoid creating a fairly expensive HeaderHash.

My approach would be that Rack::Response would be extremely simple and 
performant, and that if people wanted to add special functionality to 
it, they should do it themselves (and possibly call super). I'd be happy 
to supply patches if people were interested, but I'm not sure if 
everything could be 100% compatible with the existing Response. Which 
frameworks are using Rack::Response?

-- Yehdua

Matt Todd wrote:
> I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday and he mentioned that 
> thought the Rack package itself seemed to be slightly bloated by 
> things like Basic Auth et al. He mentioned two things I thought were 
> interesting and I wanted to get your feedback on it:
>
> 1. Like Merb, Rack probably could benefit from using a core and more 
> separation of functionality, and
> 2. Rack core should only include what's necessary for Rack::Lint to 
> validate a basic application at minimum.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Matt
>
> -- 
> Matt Todd
> Highgroove Studios
> www.highgroove.com <http://www.highgroove.com>
> cell: 404-314-2612
> blog: maraby.org <http://maraby.org>
>
> Scout - Web Monitoring and Reporting Software
> www.scoutapp.com <http://www.scoutapp.com>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2318 bytes --]