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

Question

anonrig opened this issue a year ago · 7 comments

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?

Answer 1 · 2024-05-14T00:56:53.000Z

cc @lemire what do you think?

Answer 2 · 2024-05-14T16:05:44.000Z

@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 !!!

Answer 3 · 2024-05-17T17:38:26.000Z

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

Answer 4 · 2024-05-17T18:29:22.000Z

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.

Answer 5 · 2024-05-17T22:22:43.000Z

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

Answer 6 · 2024-06-20T00:39:25.000Z

While improving ada::can_parse, I realized that if constexpr (XXX) have 50-60ns performance impact per URL.

Answer 7 · 2024-06-20T01:50:27.000Z

@anonrig We we can do if constexpr, then we definitively should... it makes the code cleaner.